My thoughts on Samadhi & Advaita

[Guest guest]

Dear KK,

You have raised very good points. In my limited fashion let me try to

explain (see below).

-

"K Kathirasan NCS" <kkathir

<advaitin>

Wednesday, December 26, 2001 6:31 PM

RE: Re: My thoughts on Samadhi & Advaita

 

> Namaste Viswanathanji

>

> From the discussions I learn that our premises are different. One school

of

> thought believes that thru Nirvikalpa Samadhi one can gain knowledge of

the

> Self while the other holds that Nirvikalpa Samadhi cannot deliver the

> knowledge. The argument for the latter is strengthened with the conviction

> that Atma can never be objectified or experienced because it is the ONLY

> invariable experience in all the 3 states of experiences i.e. waking,

> dreaming & deep sleep. So the Atma experience is 'accomplishing the

> accomplished', like the 10th man story.

I consider Nirvikalpa Samadhi being an experience, which happens only when

the limited self completely drops and in that experience the luminous Self

is revealed. To make sense out of that experience one has to go to

Scriptures or Guru's like Ramana, which or who help acquire the knowledge.

The objectification of Self occurs only in the normal ignorant state and not

during Nirvikalpa Samadhi, since the "I" dissolves into the Self. In the

normal state to which one returns after Nirvikalpa Samadhi, that experience

may still be objectified if there is lack of true knowledge from Scriptures

and real Guru's (There may be visible exceptions to this in cases such as

Ramana). On the other hand, if the person continues to reside in the

Nirvikalpa Samadhi state, the objectification vanishes completely even

during the three known states, viz., i.e. waking, dreaming & deep sleep.

Many times the true Guru's and Saints, although residing in Nirvikalpa

Samadhi all the time, may talk to the visitors, questioners, and disciples,

as though it is objectified.

> From what I have learnt, knowing 'I am Atma' and being established in it

is

> enough to be released from Samsara. Nirvikalpa Samadhi is not a

> pre-requisite for Moksha.

That knowing "I am Atma" is more than the knowledge gained from books and

teachers. The knowing, in my parlance, needs in addition the experience,

which exists only for the normal ignorant state. Knowing and being

established in "I am Atma" are both descriptions of experiences with

reference to the ignorant normal state. In that established state the

knowledge itself vanishes; just the being exists. Such a being is liberated.

This may be semantics for some and not acceptable for purists, who believe

knowledge is the only source for liberation.

> I believe we are also yet to discuss how the

> Samadhi experience brings upon the experiencer the knowledge of Atma being

> Satchitananda swarupam.

The point raised above may be much more controversial! My belief is that the

Nirvikalpa Samadhi experience in itself provides an open window for the true

knowledge that Atma is the Satchitananda swarupam, which can occur through

Grace, since the ignorance is removed.

> I have one more question. If Nirvikalpa Samadhi is all that is necessary,

> then I don't understand why Lord Krishna wasted 17 chapters in the Gita

> teaching Arjuna. If all our problems are solved just by Nirvikalpa

Samadhi,

> then what Lord Krishna should have done is to make Arjuna have that

> experience of Samadhi.?

Lord Krishna is teaching Arjuna who is the normal ignorant and confused

person in the battle field, similar to most humans in their normal state of

day-to-day existence. Arjuna was there in the battle field to correct the

wrongs done to the Pandavas and he had to perform his dharmic duty as a

Kshatrya. Lord Krishna had to educate Arjuna on his dharmic duty. If, on the

other hand, Lord Krishna had given Arjuna a taste of Nirvikalpa Samadhi at

that time, on returning back to the normal ignorant state Arjuna would have

been a total wreck with enormous confusion and would have failed to perform

his dharmic duty.

Also for normal ignorant humans suddenly jumping into Nirvikalpa Samadhi

(even if it is possible) may be disasterous, if some knowing had not

occurred earlier in this or earlier life. This is where the Scriptures and

real Guru's are of great help, since they can help trigger the forgotten

knowledge or knowing. Often times, in such cases, reading Scriptures and

listening to teachers provide a basis to gain true knowledge by oneself.

Sorry. Once again my response is wordy. Hopefully it is clear enough.

 

-- Vis

[Guest guest]

Namaste Viswanathanji,

 

Please see my comments below (my previous reply snipped):

> I consider Nirvikalpa Samadhi being an experience, which happens only when

> the limited self completely drops and in that experience the luminous Self

> is revealed. To make sense out of that experience one has to go to

> Scriptures or Guru's like Ramana, which or who help acquire the knowledge.

> The objectification of Self occurs only in the normal ignorant state and

> not

> during Nirvikalpa Samadhi, since the "I" dissolves into the Self. In the

> normal state to which one returns after Nirvikalpa Samadhi, that

> experience

> may still be objectified if there is lack of true knowledge from

> Scriptures

> and real Guru's (There may be visible exceptions to this in cases such as

> Ramana). On the other hand, if the person continues to reside in the

> Nirvikalpa Samadhi state, the objectification vanishes completely even

> during the three known states, viz., i.e. waking, dreaming & deep sleep.

> Many times the true Guru's and Saints, although residing in Nirvikalpa

> Samadhi all the time, may talk to the visitors, questioners, and

> disciples,

> as though it is objectified.

>

>

KK: May I know what is this limited self which completely drops? If you are

referring to the body-mind-sense complex, then I can agree with you sir. But

what we say is that the Self is always revealing itself as

Awareness/Consciousness in the 3 states of experience. Therefore, there is

no need for a Samadhi experience to reveal the Atma. Shastra pramana and

shraddha are enough. It sounds impossible for anyone to reside in the

Nirvikalpa Samadhi all the time (if we consider it to be a mindless state),

because we can't account for his transactions with the world without a mind.

But it can be a possibility if we take that Nirvikalpa state as a state

where there are no erroneous notions about oneself, in other words the

absence of identification with body-sense-mind complex. Then it will make

alot of sense.

 

> That knowing "I am Atma" is more than the knowledge gained from books and

> teachers. The knowing, in my parlance, needs in addition the experience,

> which exists only for the normal ignorant state. Knowing and being

> established in "I am Atma" are both descriptions of experiences with

> reference to the ignorant normal state. In that established state the

> knowledge itself vanishes; just the being exists. Such a being is

> liberated.

> This may be semantics for some and not acceptable for purists, who believe

> knowledge is the only source for liberation.

>

>

KK: From what I learnt, the mahavakya 'Tat Tvam Asi' (not Samadhi) is enough

to liberate the Jiva provided he/she has the necessary qualifications such

as Shama, Dama, mumukshutvam etc....

> The point raised above may be much more controversial! My belief is that

> the

> Nirvikalpa Samadhi experience in itself provides an open window for the

> true

> knowledge that Atma is the Satchitananda swarupam, which can occur through

> Grace, since the ignorance is removed.

>

>

KK: Sir, the above is very speculative and most of it all it mystifies

Vedanta thereby making it non-communicable wisdom.

 

> Lord Krishna is teaching Arjuna who is the normal ignorant and confused

> person in the battle field, similar to most humans in their normal state

> of

> day-to-day existence. Arjuna was there in the battle field to correct the

> wrongs done to the Pandavas and he had to perform his dharmic duty as a

> Kshatrya. Lord Krishna had to educate Arjuna on his dharmic duty. If, on

> the

> other hand, Lord Krishna had given Arjuna a taste of Nirvikalpa Samadhi at

> that time, on returning back to the normal ignorant state Arjuna would

> have

> been a total wreck with enormous confusion and would have failed to

> perform

> his dharmic duty.

>

KK: This proves that Nirvikalpa Samadhi cannot remove the ignorant person's

confusion and problems, thereby making a person a total wreck. Swami

Chinmayanandaji once said that moksha is NOT 'Freedon from action' BUT

'Freedon in action'. I think his statement truly the Vedantic concept of

moksha. It views a mukta as not a total wreck but a person who engages in

the world yet knowing himself to be free from it. So if Nirvikalpa Samadhi

makes a person a total wreck with enormous confusion, it can never be a

worthy accomplishment. Moreover you mentioned that the Samadhi experience

'opens a window for the true knowledge that Atma is the Satchitananda

swarupam, which can occur through Grace, since the ignorance is removed'. So

where is the place for confusion when ignorance is removed and can a person

be a total wreck after knowing oneself to be Satchitananda?

> Also for normal ignorant humans suddenly jumping into Nirvikalpa Samadhi

> (even if it is possible) may be disasterous, if some knowing had not

> occurred earlier in this or earlier life. This is where the Scriptures and

> real Guru's are of great help, since they can help trigger the forgotten

> knowledge or knowing. Often times, in such cases, reading Scriptures and

> listening to teachers provide a basis to gain true knowledge by oneself.

> Sorry. Once again my response is wordy. Hopefully it is clear enough.

>

KK: This will be my last post on this topic. Perhaps other members can

contribute. I would like to thank everyone for their patience with my

rattlings and apologies if it has taken too much of your time.

[Guest guest]

hariH OM!

namaste.

 

we tend to glorify and "exotify" this [state of] nirvikalpa samadhi.

it simply implies "experience void of thought." this in turn implies

one's natural state of Being. so we are innately in sahaja nirvikalpa

samadhi. but the thing telling us otherwise is simply the Mind. the

ego-Mind.

 

now, to my understanding, *everyone* is aware they're experiencing

[their] natural state to one degree or another. critical thing is

when it uniquely reaches a certain "intellectually noticeable" level,

one thus places it in a special category (in our case, defining it as

NS), which was previously non-existent in one's database of

experientially awareness-based events.

 

the best illustration of this glimpsing of the direct experience of

our innate sat or pure Being [without the diversion of the ego-Mind],

is for example evidenced when we get the chills or "goosebumps" as a

result of rightly tuning into some event in nature, some piece of

music, some inexplicable human-transcendental eyecontact with another,

some thrill via life's unexpected happenings.....all made possible

specifically because the Mind is somehow not rationally engaged or

preoccupied with its subconscious-spun diversions within [that given]

span of time..

 

so the thing becomes: how to get to or *live in* this no-Mind state

*while awake*, and achieving such for sustained stretches of time.

 

this is where one's sadhana or spiritual training comes in. and there

are numerous valid/expedient ways of getting there.

 

i had my first NS event in 1967 while walking to a friend's one spring

morning, an elementary school bell ringing in the midst of my walking

by, when suddenly hundreds of kids coming out of and going back into

the school doors, and i felt an unequivocal at-one-ment with the

children and the entire world itself, sustained for 3 or 4 minutes or

so. completely "blissed out" with sheer wonder and beauty of the

ways things *really* are [i surmised quite automatically at the time,

that is, without any process of rational thinking that delivered that

insight that needed no qualification, but was a direct knowing]. and

ever since, the experience would intermittantly return with greater

frequency as well as longer durations, until it became the foundation

of my daily awareness. now i have the reverse. commonplace NS with

interludes of apparent disconnects with that foundation, until i put

things back in order with instantaneous habit of self-inquiry, and the

mental-formed "disconnect dilemma" dissipates.

 

i personally don't think it's possible to be perfected as long as one

is embodied and thus subject to prarabdha karma. but i also believe

it's more than this. i've come to believe that we will eternally

desire some form of embodied manifestation, and therefore be subject

to an inevitable flaw due to the fact that manifestation precludes the

laws and conditions of Relativity, which necessitate the properties of

polarization. however, as i mentioned in my last post, as long as the

individual maintains the foundational connection with the substratum

brahman Self, the necessary Flaw inhabiting the body-mind complex

needn't be anything of concern.

 

as far as the necessity of NS as prerequisite to the jivanmukthi

state, i would say coming to understand its true nature is

indispensable. that it isn't as elusive and rare as our minds have

made it to be. that, knowledge coupled with devotion (jnanayog plus

bhakthiyog) in fact delivers it, being our natural energy state.

 

as to "how the 'experiencer' actually concludes that the Atma is

indeed Satchitananda swarupam," again isn't a matter of a rational

process in thinking, but an intuitive [buddhic] certainty that needs

no qualification!

 

OM shaanthi.

 

-frank

[Guest guest]

Hi Frank-ji,

 

You said it! For many people, nirvikalpa samadhi, which is just one of many

different comings and goings, *implies* one's natural state of Being. This

samadhi and this implication are often (mis)taken for that state of Being. I've

known people depressed and saddened for years, after attaining then losing

nirvikalpa samadhi, which they had been taught was IT.

 

OM!

 

--Greg

 

At 09:23 PM 12/27/01 +0000, egodust wrote:

>we tend to glorify and "exotify" this [state of] nirvikalpa samadhi.

>it simply implies "experience void of thought." this in turn implies

>one's natural state of Being. so we are innately in sahaja nirvikalpa

>samadhi. but the thing telling us otherwise is simply the Mind. the

>ego-Mind.

[Guest guest]

Dear K Kathirasan NCS,

 

It is evident from the trend of your recent posts, that

you are really trying to determine the value of Nirvikalpa Samadhi

for the attainment of the Knowledge of the Self. There are two popular

views which many posters participating in this discussion seem to be

upholding: 1) 'The Upanishadic teaching can only yield 'Indirect

Knowledge' of the Self, and for the 'Direct knowledge' of the Self,

Nirvikalpa Samadhi is absolutely necessary.' -or- 2) 'While it may be

the case that some aspirants can get the 'Direct Knowledge' of the

Self merely from the Upanishadic teaching, nevertheless, others can

get that same 'Direct Knowledge' of the Self from Nirvikalpa Samadhi

independent of the Upanishadic teachings.

 

I will attempt to show that both these views are totally

wrong, and that Nirvikalpa Samadhi is not only UTTERLY USELESS for

the attainment of the 'Direct Knowledge' of the Self, but that it has

many potential defects, perhaps the most common being the 'Spiritual

Arrogance' that is often produced in those who claim to have attained

such an 'exalted' state (i.e.:" I had Nirvikalpa Samadhi and you have

not.". " I now have the 'Direct Knowledge' of the Self, because I

attained Nirvikalpa, and others who have not attained Nirvikalpa can

not have the 'Direct Knowledge' of the Self.I was in Nirvikalpa for

three days, and you were in Nirvkalpa for only three minutes.". "My

Guru was in Nirvikalpa for three weeks!". and other such egotistical

nonsense.) And in addition I will try to demonstrate that,( in spite

of any declarations made to the contrary by modern day Advaita

teachers, be it Ramana Maharshi, Swami Chinmayananda, Swami

Vivekanada, Kanchi Shankaracarya, or anyone else who you care to cite

as an 'authority') the teaching that the attainment of Nirvikalpa

Samadhi is either, 'the ONLY means for the attainment of the 'Direct

Knowledge' of the Self', or, 'that it is merely ONE OF THE MEANS for

the attainment of the 'Direct Knowledge' of the Self', goes against

the Vedantic Scriptures, Sri Shankaras' and Sureswaras' commentaries,

Reason , and Experience (Sruti,Yukti Anubhava Virudhaha)!!

 

 

Let us begin by examining exactly what this state of Nirvikalpa

Samadhi can and cannot be. The word Nirvikalpa literally means

'without thought' or 'without imagination', however, in a more general

sense, it can be described as a state in which all distinctions have

subsided. This includes not only the distinctions of the 'mind' and

the 'senses' but also of 'time' and 'space', as well as. the absence

of the Subject and the Object, the absence of an Experiencer and the

Experienced, the absence of the Agent and his Action, the absence of a

Knower and the thing Known. In short it refers to a state in which the

awareness of any duality has ceased. Now I ask you, as you yourself

have asked, "How is it possible for a person to know the Self to be

Satchitananda Svarupam (of the nature of Absolute Existence, Absolute

Consciousness, Absolute Bliss) in the state of Nirvikalpa Samadhi?" He

cannot! In that state he can't know himself to be the Self, an

individual, or a broomstick. If he "knows:" anything, "realizes"

anything, experiences anything, he is by definition not in the state

of Nirvikalpa Samadhi. To think otherwise commits one to the dogma

that Knowledge can arise even in the absence of a 'means of

knowledge'. In this state of Nirvikalpa Samadhi there is no

functioning of the senses or the mind or the Upanishadic teaching, how

can the knowledge of anything arise?

 

There are some who would counter these objections by admitting

that while there are no 'means of knowledge' functioning in the state

of Nirvikalpa Samadhi, and therefore the 'knowledge of the Self does

not arise in that state, nevertheless, when one comes out of that

state he is able to recollect his experience of the 'absence of all

duality' or to put it in other words, to recollect his 'experience of

Non Duality' and this is what is indicated by saying that he has

attained the 'Direct Knowledge' of the Self, or that Nirvikalpa

Samadhi is the 'means' of Knowing the Self. But this argument cannot

be accepted, for if it were true that merely by attaining a state in

which 'the awareness of all duality has ceased' or one in which 'Non

Duality alone obtained' one could then come to Know the Self, then it

must be specified why it is the case that in other states in which the

experience of duality has totally ceased, such as faint, coma, deep

sleep, etc, the knowledge of the Self does not arise. No one ever

assumes that merely because he fainted, was in a coma, or fell into

deep sleep, and thereby was not aware of any duality, of any Subject

or Object, of any world or an experiencer of that world, that the

dualistic world was not then existing during those states, or that the

dualistic world doesn't exit or that it is not real. In the same way,

no one can claim to' know' that 'the world of duality' which was

appearing before the state of Nirvikalpa Samadhi and which then ceased

to appear during the state of Nirvilapa Samadhi, and which made its

appearance again after the state of Nirvikalpa, was not existing

during that state, nor that it doesn't exist ,nor that its not real,

merely because he was not aware of it during his temporary state of

Nirvikalpa Samadhi. (And this is exactly what Patanjali himself

concluded after attaining his Nirvikalpa Samadhi, I.E: that in fact

the 'world of duality' does exit, even during the state of Nirvikalpa,

but, he conjectured, that by attaining the Nirvikalpa state, one could

come to realize that the Self is eternally free from and unattached to

the 'real world of duality').

 

But this contradicts the 'Direct Knowledge' of

the Self as expounded in the Upanishads, For the Self of the

Upanishads is Non Dual, There is no second thing called the 'world of

duality' which can be said to exist or to be real. In fact, even the

so called multiplicity of states called waking, dream, deep sleep,

fainting ,coma ,Nirvikalpa, hypnotic, mystical. hallucinatory, etc.,

are all temporary, all changing, and ultimately all false. They are in

truth nothing but the Self misconceived, and this Direct Knowledge

comes only from the Upanishadic teaching and not from the attainment

of any new 'state'. Attaining a new state is not a means (pramana) to

know the Self. He who thinks that he is attaining different states is

not a knower the Self, the Upanishada Purusha, the Self which is

exclusively taught by the Upanishads, and which is Unchanging, whose

eternal nature is Nirvikalpa and who is beyond all time and space and

so beyond all transitory 'states'.

 

At this point, it is easy to imagine how all the supporters of

Nirvikalpa Samadhi are ready to point out the Himalayan blunder that

I have committed. The unforgivable error of having equated the sublime

state of Nirvikalpa Samadhi, in which one is "Totally Conscious", and

which is very hard to attain, and which the great Sages of the past

and present have described with the highest acumens,-- with the common

state of Deep Sleep, in which one is "Totally Unconscious" and

"Ignorant of his true Self", and which is attained by all and sundry

without any effort whatsoever! Yet this identification is no personal

blunder of my own, for this same identification has been made by

the Upanishads and Sri Shankara himself:

"Just as in Deep Sleep and Samadhi, though there is a

natural eradication of all distinctions"….(Here Shankara clearly

identifies both states, as states in which one is no longer aware of

any duality).". But, because there is the persistence of Ignorance

(in both these states)"…(Here Shankara indicates that by attaining

either Deep Sleep or Samadhi, Ignorace is not destroyed)…"duality once

again makes it appearance"…But for the Muktas, duality does not

appear again, FOR IN THEIR CASE (unlike those who have merely gone to

Deep Sleep or attained Samadhi) Ignorance has been destroyed by

Knowledge (obtained from the teachings of the Scripture and Guru.)"

Sutra bashya 2-1-9

 

 

And while it can be admitted that

there are differences to be noted with regards to how one may enter

into the state of Nivikalpa Samadhi, as opposed to the state of Deep

Sleep, as well as to the differences that obtain after one comes out

of Nirvikalpa Samadhi, as opposed to how one comes out of Deep Sleep,

nevertheless, the 'experience' in both these states MUST be identical,

For if there were any distinctions in one state that was not

obtaining in the other, then that very 'distinction' would disqualifiy

it for belonging to a state in which all distinctions have ceased, be

it Nirvkalpa Samadhi or Deep Sleep. If it is asserted that in

Nirvikalpa state one is aware of an 'Infinite Bliss', an

'Inconceivable Peace', a' Non-Dual Self' or any other thing that does

not appear in Deep Sleep, then you have given up the position that the

Nirvikalpa state is really Nirvikalpa , for the experience of anything

requires the minimum duality of an experiencer and the thing that he

is experiencing, be it Bliss, Peace or Non Duality. Actually, the

cause of this confusion can be laid at the feet of those champions of

Nirvikalpa Samadhi who look upon Deep Sleep as merely a state of

unconsciousness, disregarding or misinterpreting what the Vedantic

Scriptures, as well as what Shankaras' commentaries have to say about

it.:

 

To begin with, while it is true that the common man takes

himself to be 'Ignorant ' or 'Unconscious' in the state of Deep Sleep,

the Sruti presents us with another veiwpont-the viewpoint of the

actual experience of Deep sleep. From this standpoint the Sruti

describes Deep Sleep as follows:

 

"That (state of Deep Sleep) is his form-beyond desires, free

from evils and fearless. As a man fully embraced by his beloved wife,

does not know anything at all, either internal or external, so does

the individual self, fully embraced by the Supreme Self, not know

anything at all, either internal or external. That is His form-in

which all objects of desire have been attained, all desires are the

Self, and which is free from desire and devoid of Grief"

Brhadaranyaka .4-3-21

 

(In his commentary on this verse Shankara clearly explains

that the reason one does not know the Self in Deep Sleep, or anything

else, is not because one is then Unconscious or Ignorant, but because

of Unity , because he is then the Non Dual Self alone.)

 

"In this state a father is no father, a mother no mother,

worlds no worlds, the gods no gods, the Vedas no Vedas. In this state,

a thief is no thief, the killer of a noble Brahmana no killer, an

outcast no outcaste, …a monk no monk, a hermit no hermit. This form of

His is untouched by good work and untouched by evil work, for He is

then beyond all the woes of the heart.That he does not see in that

state is (NOT BECAUSE HE IS IGNORANT OR UNCONSCIOUS BUT) because,

THOUGH SEEING THEN, he does not see; for the vision of the witness can

never be lost, because it is IMPERISHABLE. But there is not that

second thing separate from it which it could see." Brhad. Upa.

4-3-22,23

 

"….Where for that sleeping one, he doesn't desire any

desirable thing, nor does he see any Dream, that is the state of Deep

Sleep." (Brhadaranyaka 4-3-19,)

 

Here 'Deep Sleep' actually means one's own true nature of

being bereft of the duality that appears in both Waking and Dream.

Because Waking and Dream states are false appearances, it is only from

the point of view of the waking state that one imagines that Deep

Sleep is a state of Unconsciousness or Ignorance. In other words we

have superimposed the concept of Deep Sleep on the Real Self from the

biased viewpoint of the Waking state. But because in truth, so called

'Deep Sleep' is our true nature, and since ones own true nature can

never be given up, how we were in Deep Sleep is exactly how we are

right now. But because of ignorance we have identified with the

adjuncts that are appearing in waking and dream and from that

perspective only it is said that one 'attains his own true nature in

Deep Sleep( Svapati=He Sleeps= Sva (His own Self) Apati(He enters) As

Shankara puts it:

 

"Besides there is no time when the individual has not

become one with the Absolute Brahman, for one's intrinsic nature can

never disappear. It is only relative to the 'seeming' foreign aspect

which he assumes in dream and waking, owing to the contact of

conditioning associates, that it is now being said that he attain his

'true nature' from the dissolution of that foreign aspect(in Deep

Sleep)." Sutra Bhasya 3-2-7

 

" When the two adjuncts of waking and dream disappear,

THEN THE SELF REMAINS IN HIS TRUE NATURE IN DEEP SLEEP. It is then

said that 'he merges as if' (praleena iva ) in Deep Sleep." Sutra

Bhasya 1-1-9

 

In other words, from the standpoint of the direct experience of

'Deep Sleep', it is only the Pure Self, Pure Being, Pure Consciousness

and Pure Bliss. (I refer all those interest in this subject i.e. that

in the state of Deep Sleep one is in fact remaining in his own true

nature of Eternal Consciousness to see what Shankara has to say in his

Brhidaranyaka Bhasaya(4-3-21 to 4-3-32) ).

 

Thus, just like in Nivikalpa Samadhi whereby one "becomes" one

with the Non Dual Self, so also in Deep Sleep one "becomes' one with

the Non Dual Self. But in both these states there is no knowledge of

this fact. And therefore this knowledge has to be attained in the

waking state where there obtains the distinctions of Guru and Shastra

etc.

 

Shankara has given us a comprehensive view of the totality of

human experiences by viewing ALL STATES of experience as falling into

one of two categories. 'Darshana Vriti' (a state in which one is aware

of something) and 'Adarshana Vriti (a state in which one is not aware

of anything). These two categories completely exhaust the

possibilities of human experience, as there is no possible third

alternative. Thus, states like waking, dream, mystical, hallucinatory,

daydreaming, imaginary, etc, are all states in which one is aware of

something, and states like Deep Sleep, Coma, Faint, Nirvikalpa , etc.,

are all states in which one is not aware of anything. Now the

Witnessing Consciousness which is always present, unchanging, and

beyond all states.(weather or not something is appearing), and which

testifies to their presence and absence, is the Non Dual -True Self of

each of us. And to intuit this universal fact of experience is

referred to in Advaita Vedanta as attaining the 'Direct Knowledge' of

the Self. This Direct Knowledge of the Self can not be had by

attaining any new state, be it "Darshana Vriti" or Adarshna Vriti.

 

The reason why Shankara doesn't spend much time in refuting

Patanjalis' dualistic Yoga Darshana, or the practice of 'The restraint

of all mental modifications' (Chita Vriti Nirodha) which results in

Nirvikalpa Samadhi, as a means to know the Self, is because after

having completely demolished the dualistic Samkhya Darshana in his

Sutra Bhasya, there was no need to separately refute the Patanjali

Yogins, or their 'yogic methods' which leads to Nirvikalpa Samadhi,

because their metaphysical philosophy was almost the same as the

Samkhyas. This is based on the Sutra which states ; 'Thereby Yoga

Darshana also stands refuted.' However the doctrine that the

attainment of Nirvikalpa Samadhi, or the 'restraint of the mental

modifications'( chita Vriti Nirodha), leads to the 'Direct Knowledge'

of the self is thoroughly examined and refuted by Shankaras' direct

disciple Sureswaracharya in his Brhadaranyaka Vartica, as well as his

Sambandha Vartica. I will end this post with a quote from this text as

well as the sub-commentary by AanandaGiri.

 

" In states like 'Deep Sleep', etc., even though

there are no mental impressions, there is no release; nor in the

absence of the of the functioning of the means of valid knowledge in

those states does the inner Self manifest itself." Sub. Com.-" By the

mere suppression of mental impressions one cannot attain release,

There are no mental impressions in sleep; but sleep is not release. It

cannot be said that there are mental impressions in sleep, for if that

were so sleep would not be sleep. If it be urged that in sleep the

mental impressions remain in the form of their cause, via. Ignorance,

then it is only the removal of that cause that would lead to

release. And the removal of Ignorance is possible only through

Knowledge. As for what was said, that even without the functioning of

the 'means of knowledge' (pramanas), the Self shines when the mental

impressions are removed, we have to make this observation; THAT

WITHOUT PRAMANA (A MEANS OF KNOWLEDGE) THE SELF-MANIFESTATION OF THE

SELF CANNOT BE KNOWN." Sambhanda Vartica 463-464a.

 

Om Tat Sat

Atmachaitanya

 

 

 

 

 

advaitin, K Kathirasan NCS <kkathir@n...> wrote:

> Namaste Viswanathanji,

>

> Please see my comments below (my previous reply snipped):

>

> > I consider Nirvikalpa Samadhi being an experience, which happens

only when

> > the limited self completely drops and in that experience the

luminous Self

> > is revealed. To make sense out of that experience one has to go to

> > Scriptures or Guru's like Ramana, which or who help acquire the

knowledge.

> > The objectification of Self occurs only in the normal ignorant

state and

> > not

> > during Nirvikalpa Samadhi, since the "I" dissolves into the Self.

In the

> > normal state to which one returns after Nirvikalpa Samadhi, that

> > experience

> > may still be objectified if there is lack of true knowledge from

> > Scriptures

> > and real Guru's (There may be visible exceptions to this in cases

such as

> > Ramana). On the other hand, if the person continues to reside in

the

> > Nirvikalpa Samadhi state, the objectification vanishes completely

even

> > during the three known states, viz., i.e. waking, dreaming & deep

sleep.

> > Many times the true Guru's and Saints, although residing in

Nirvikalpa

> > Samadhi all the time, may talk to the visitors, questioners, and

> > disciples,

> > as though it is objectified.

> >

> >

> KK: May I know what is this limited self which completely drops? If

you are

> referring to the body-mind-sense complex, then I can agree with you

sir. But

> what we say is that the Self is always revealing itself as

> Awareness/Consciousness in the 3 states of experience. Therefore,

there is

> no need for a Samadhi experience to reveal the Atma. Shastra

pramana and

> shraddha are enough. It sounds impossible for anyone to reside in

the

> Nirvikalpa Samadhi all the time (if we consider it to be a mindless

state),

> because we can't account for his transactions with the world without

a mind.

> But it can be a possibility if we take that Nirvikalpa state as a

state

> where there are no erroneous notions about oneself, in other words

the

> absence of identification with body-sense-mind complex. Then it

will make

> alot of sense.

>

>

> > That knowing "I am Atma" is more than the knowledge gained from

books and

> > teachers. The knowing, in my parlance, needs in addition the

experience,

> > which exists only for the normal ignorant state. Knowing and being

> > established in "I am Atma" are both descriptions of experiences

with

> > reference to the ignorant normal state. In that established state

the

> > knowledge itself vanishes; just the being exists. Such a being is

> > liberated.

> > This may be semantics for some and not acceptable for purists, who

believe

> > knowledge is the only source for liberation.

> >

> >

> KK: From what I learnt, the mahavakya 'Tat Tvam Asi' (not Samadhi)

is enough

> to liberate the Jiva provided he/she has the necessary

qualifications such

> as Shama, Dama, mumukshutvam etc....

>

> > The point raised above may be much more controversial! My belief

is that

> > the

> > Nirvikalpa Samadhi experience in itself provides an open window

for the

> > true

> > knowledge that Atma is the Satchitananda swarupam, which can occur

through

> > Grace, since the ignorance is removed.

> >

> >

> KK: Sir, the above is very speculative and most of it all it

mystifies

> Vedanta thereby making it non-communicable wisdom.

>

>

> > Lord Krishna is teaching Arjuna who is the normal ignorant and

confused

> > person in the battle field, similar to most humans in their normal

state

> > of

> > day-to-day existence. Arjuna was there in the battle field to

correct the

> > wrongs done to the Pandavas and he had to perform his dharmic duty

as a

> > Kshatrya. Lord Krishna had to educate Arjuna on his dharmic duty.

If, on

> > the

> > other hand, Lord Krishna had given Arjuna a taste of Nirvikalpa

Samadhi at

> > that time, on returning back to the normal ignorant state Arjuna

would

> > have

> > been a total wreck with enormous confusion and would have failed

to

> > perform

> > his dharmic duty.

> >

> KK: This proves that Nirvikalpa Samadhi cannot remove the ignorant

person's

> confusion and problems, thereby making a person a total wreck.

Swami

> Chinmayanandaji once said that moksha is NOT 'Freedon from action'

BUT

> 'Freedon in action'. I think his statement truly the Vedantic

concept of

> moksha. It views a mukta as not a total wreck but a person who

engages in

> the world yet knowing himself to be free from it. So if Nirvikalpa

Samadhi

> makes a person a total wreck with enormous confusion, it can never

be a

> worthy accomplishment. Moreover you mentioned that the Samadhi

experience

> 'opens a window for the true knowledge that Atma is the

Satchitananda

> swarupam, which can occur through Grace, since the ignorance is

removed'. So

> where is the place for confusion when ignorance is removed and can a

person

> be a total wreck after knowing oneself to be Satchitananda?

>

> > Also for normal ignorant humans suddenly jumping into Nirvikalpa

Samadhi

> > (even if it is possible) may be disasterous, if some knowing had

not

> > occurred earlier in this or earlier life. This is where the

Scriptures and

> > real Guru's are of great help, since they can help trigger the

forgotten

> > knowledge or knowing. Often times, in such cases, reading

Scriptures and

> > listening to teachers provide a basis to gain true knowledge by

oneself.

> > Sorry. Once again my response is wordy. Hopefully it is clear

enough.

> >

> KK: This will be my last post on this topic. Perhaps other members

can

> contribute. I would like to thank everyone for their patience with

my

> rattlings and apologies if it has taken too much of your time.

[Guest guest]

The goal is to attain Self-Realization by whatever means available

and natural to one. Study of scriptures and hearing of the words of

the Guru is not incompatible with meditation, contemplation, and self-

inquiry. Sages and scriptures declare that Self-Knowledge is revealed

to a calm and peaceful mind surrendered to the feet of the Lord or

the Guru who stands for the Lord in human form and whose very words

carry the essence of Truth and the full force of scriptures.

 

What is so difficult about understanding all this?

 

Leaving aside the notion of Nirvikalpa, Savikalpa, Sahaj and so on,

one can reflect on one's current state and where one is. Since the

Upanishads declare that only Self Is, one must Recognize the Self in

the present moment in one's own Being. If that is done, it is more

than enough. One need not be anxious about demonstrating that there

is only one valid way to Realize the Self and that certain words or

concepts like Nirvikalpa are inherently flawed.

 

Even in Bhagavad Gita, Sri Krishna mentions several paths. If the

Lord Himself is flexible, there is no requirement on us to be rigid

in our views.

 

Love to all

Harsha

 

 

advaitin, "atmachaitanya108" <stadri@a...> wrote:

> Dear K Kathirasan NCS,

>

> It is evident from the trend of your recent posts,

that

> you are really trying to determine the value of Nirvikalpa Samadhi

> for the attainment of the Knowledge of the Self. There are two

popular

> views which many posters participating in this discussion seem to

be

> upholding: 1) 'The Upanishadic teaching can only yield 'Indirect

> Knowledge' of the Self, and for the 'Direct knowledge' of the Self,

> Nirvikalpa Samadhi is absolutely necessary.' -or- 2) 'While it may

be

> the case that some aspirants can get the 'Direct Knowledge' of the

> Self merely from the Upanishadic teaching, nevertheless, others

can

> get that same 'Direct Knowledge' of the Self from Nirvikalpa

Samadhi

> independent of the Upanishadic teachings.

>

> I will attempt to show that both these views are totally

> wrong, and that Nirvikalpa Samadhi is not only UTTERLY USELESS

for

> the attainment of the 'Direct Knowledge' of the Self, but that it

has

> many potential defects, perhaps the most common being

the 'Spiritual

> Arrogance' that is often produced in those who claim to have

attained

> such an 'exalted' state (i.e.:" I had Nirvikalpa Samadhi and you

have

> not.". " I now have the 'Direct Knowledge' of the Self, because I

> attained Nirvikalpa, and others who have not attained Nirvikalpa

can

> not have the 'Direct Knowledge' of the Self.I was in Nirvikalpa

for

> three days, and you were in Nirvkalpa for only three

minutes.". "My

> Guru was in Nirvikalpa for three weeks!". and other such

egotistical

> nonsense.) And in addition I will try to demonstrate that,( in

spite

> of any declarations made to the contrary by modern day Advaita

> teachers, be it Ramana Maharshi, Swami Chinmayananda, Swami

> Vivekanada, Kanchi Shankaracarya, or anyone else who you care to

cite

> as an 'authority') the teaching that the attainment of Nirvikalpa

> Samadhi is either, 'the ONLY means for the attainment of

the 'Direct

> Knowledge' of the Self', or, 'that it is merely ONE OF THE MEANS

for

> the attainment of the 'Direct Knowledge' of the Self', goes against

> the Vedantic Scriptures, Sri Shankaras' and Sureswaras'

commentaries,

> Reason , and Experience (Sruti,Yukti Anubhava Virudhaha)!!

>

>

> Let us begin by examining exactly what this state of

Nirvikalpa

> Samadhi can and cannot be. The word Nirvikalpa literally means

> 'without thought' or 'without imagination', however, in a more

general

> sense, it can be described as a state in which all distinctions

have

> subsided. This includes not only the distinctions of the 'mind' and

> the 'senses' but also of 'time' and 'space', as well as. the

absence

> of the Subject and the Object, the absence of an Experiencer and

the

> Experienced, the absence of the Agent and his Action, the absence

of a

> Knower and the thing Known. In short it refers to a state in which

the

> awareness of any duality has ceased. Now I ask you, as you yourself

> have asked, "How is it possible for a person to know the Self to be

> Satchitananda Svarupam (of the nature of Absolute Existence,

Absolute

> Consciousness, Absolute Bliss) in the state of Nirvikalpa Samadhi?"

He

> cannot! In that state he can't know himself to be the Self, an

> individual, or a broomstick. If he "knows:" anything, "realizes"

> anything, experiences anything, he is by definition not in the

state

> of Nirvikalpa Samadhi. To think otherwise commits one to the dogma

> that Knowledge can arise even in the absence of a 'means of

> knowledge'. In this state of Nirvikalpa Samadhi there is no

> functioning of the senses or the mind or the Upanishadic teaching,

how

> can the knowledge of anything arise?

>

> There are some who would counter these objections by admitting

> that while there are no 'means of knowledge' functioning in the

state

> of Nirvikalpa Samadhi, and therefore the 'knowledge of the Self

does

> not arise in that state, nevertheless, when one comes out of that

> state he is able to recollect his experience of the 'absence of all

> duality' or to put it in other words, to recollect his 'experience

of

> Non Duality' and this is what is indicated by saying that he has

> attained the 'Direct Knowledge' of the Self, or that Nirvikalpa

> Samadhi is the 'means' of Knowing the Self. But this argument

cannot

> be accepted, for if it were true that merely by attaining a state

in

> which 'the awareness of all duality has ceased' or one in

which 'Non

> Duality alone obtained' one could then come to Know the Self, then

it

> must be specified why it is the case that in other states in which

the

> experience of duality has totally ceased, such as faint, coma, deep

> sleep, etc, the knowledge of the Self does not arise. No one ever

> assumes that merely because he fainted, was in a coma, or fell into

> deep sleep, and thereby was not aware of any duality, of any

Subject

> or Object, of any world or an experiencer of that world, that the

> dualistic world was not then existing during those states, or that

the

> dualistic world doesn't exit or that it is not real. In the same

way,

> no one can claim to' know' that 'the world of duality' which was

> appearing before the state of Nirvikalpa Samadhi and which then

ceased

> to appear during the state of Nirvilapa Samadhi, and which made its

> appearance again after the state of Nirvikalpa, was not existing

> during that state, nor that it doesn't exist ,nor that its not

real,

> merely because he was not aware of it during his temporary state of

> Nirvikalpa Samadhi. (And this is exactly what Patanjali himself

> concluded after attaining his Nirvikalpa Samadhi, I.E: that in fact

> the 'world of duality' does exit, even during the state of

Nirvikalpa,

> but, he conjectured, that by attaining the Nirvikalpa state, one

could

> come to realize that the Self is eternally free from and unattached

to

> the 'real world of duality').

>

> But this contradicts the 'Direct Knowledge'

of

> the Self as expounded in the Upanishads, For the Self of the

> Upanishads is Non Dual, There is no second thing called the 'world

of

> duality' which can be said to exist or to be real. In fact, even

the

> so called multiplicity of states called waking, dream, deep sleep,

> fainting ,coma ,Nirvikalpa, hypnotic, mystical. hallucinatory,

etc.,

> are all temporary, all changing, and ultimately all false. They are

in

> truth nothing but the Self misconceived, and this Direct Knowledge

> comes only from the Upanishadic teaching and not from the

attainment

> of any new 'state'. Attaining a new state is not a means (pramana)

to

> know the Self. He who thinks that he is attaining different states

is

> not a knower the Self, the Upanishada Purusha, the Self which is

> exclusively taught by the Upanishads, and which is Unchanging,

whose

> eternal nature is Nirvikalpa and who is beyond all time and space

and

> so beyond all transitory 'states'.

>

> At this point, it is easy to imagine how all the supporters

of

> Nirvikalpa Samadhi are ready to point out the Himalayan blunder

that

> I have committed. The unforgivable error of having equated the

sublime

> state of Nirvikalpa Samadhi, in which one is "Totally Conscious",

and

> which is very hard to attain, and which the great Sages of the

past

> and present have described with the highest acumens,-- with the

common

> state of Deep Sleep, in which one is "Totally Unconscious" and

> "Ignorant of his true Self", and which is attained by all and

sundry

> without any effort whatsoever! Yet this identification is no

personal

> blunder of my own, for this same identification has been made by

> the Upanishads and Sri Shankara himself:

> "Just as in Deep Sleep and Samadhi, though there

is a

> natural eradication of all distinctions"….(Here Shankara

clearly

> identifies both states, as states in which one is no longer aware

of

> any duality).". But, because there is the persistence of Ignorance

> (in both these states)"…(Here Shankara indicates that by

attaining

> either Deep Sleep or Samadhi, Ignorace is not de

stroyed)…"duality

once

> again makes it appearance"…But for the Muktas, duality does

not

> appear again, FOR IN THEIR CASE (unlike those who have merely gone

to

> Deep Sleep or attained Samadhi) Ignorance has been destroyed by

> Knowledge (obtained from the teachings of the Scripture and Guru.)"

> Sutra bashya 2-1-9

>

>

> And while it can be admitted that

> there are differences to be noted with regards to how one may enter

> into the state of Nivikalpa Samadhi, as opposed to the state of

Deep

> Sleep, as well as to the differences that obtain after one comes

out

> of Nirvikalpa Samadhi, as opposed to how one comes out of Deep

Sleep,

> nevertheless, the 'experience' in both these states MUST be

identical,

> For if there were any distinctions in one state that was not

> obtaining in the other, then that very 'distinction' would

disqualifiy

> it for belonging to a state in which all distinctions have ceased,

be

> it Nirvkalpa Samadhi or Deep Sleep. If it is asserted that in

> Nirvikalpa state one is aware of an 'Infinite Bliss', an

> 'Inconceivable Peace', a' Non-Dual Self' or any other thing that

does

> not appear in Deep Sleep, then you have given up the position that

the

> Nirvikalpa state is really Nirvikalpa , for the experience of

anything

> requires the minimum duality of an experiencer and the thing that

he

> is experiencing, be it Bliss, Peace or Non Duality. Actually, the

> cause of this confusion can be laid at the feet of those champions

of

> Nirvikalpa Samadhi who look upon Deep Sleep as merely a state of

> unconsciousness, disregarding or misinterpreting what the Vedantic

> Scriptures, as well as what Shankaras' commentaries have to say

about

> it.:

>

> To begin with, while it is true that the common man takes

> himself to be 'Ignorant ' or 'Unconscious' in the state of Deep

Sleep,

> the Sruti presents us with another veiwpont-the viewpoint of the

> actual experience of Deep sleep. From this standpoint the Sruti

> describes Deep Sleep as follows:

>

> "That (state of Deep Sleep) is his form-beyond desires,

free

> from evils and fearless. As a man fully embraced by his beloved

wife,

> does not know anything at all, either internal or external, so does

> the individual self, fully embraced by the Supreme Self, not know

> anything at all, either internal or external. That is His form-in

> which all objects of desire have been attained, all desires are the

> Self, and which is free from desire and devoid of Grief"

> Brhadaranyaka .4-3-21

>

> (In his commentary on this verse Shankara clearly explains

> that the reason one does not know the Self in Deep Sleep, or

anything

> else, is not because one is then Unconscious or Ignorant, but

because

> of Unity , because he is then the Non Dual Self alone.)

>

> "In this state a father is no father, a mother no

mother,

> worlds no worlds, the gods no gods, the Vedas no Vedas. In this

state,

> a thief is no thief, the killer of a noble Brahmana no killer, an

> outcast no outcaste, …a monk no monk, a hermit no hermit. This

form

of

> His is untouched by good work and untouched by evil work, for He is

> then beyond all the woes of the heart.That he does not see in

that

> state is (NOT BECAUSE HE IS IGNORANT OR UNCONSCIOUS BUT) because,

> THOUGH SEEING THEN, he does not see; for the vision of the witness

can

> never be lost, because it is IMPERISHABLE. But there is not that

> second thing separate from it which it could see." Brhad. Upa.

> 4-3-22,23

>

> "….Where for that sleeping one, he doesn't desire

any

> desirable thing, nor does he see any Dream, that is the state of

Deep

> Sleep." (Brhadaranyaka 4-3-19,)

>

> Here 'Deep Sleep' actually means one's own true nature of

> being bereft of the duality that appears in both Waking and Dream.

> Because Waking and Dream states are false appearances, it is only

from

> the point of view of the waking state that one imagines that Deep

> Sleep is a state of Unconsciousness or Ignorance. In other words we

> have superimposed the concept of Deep Sleep on the Real Self from

the

> biased viewpoint of the Waking state. But because in truth, so

called

> 'Deep Sleep' is our true nature, and since ones own true nature

can

> never be given up, how we were in Deep Sleep is exactly how we are

> right now. But because of ignorance we have identified with the

> adjuncts that are appearing in waking and dream and from that

> perspective only it is said that one 'attains his own true nature

in

> Deep Sleep( Svapati=He Sleeps= Sva (His own Self) Apati(He enters)

As

> Shankara puts it:

>

> "Besides there is no time when the individual has

not

> become one with the Absolute Brahman, for one's intrinsic nature

can

> never disappear. It is only relative to the 'seeming' foreign

aspect

> which he assumes in dream and waking, owing to the contact of

> conditioning associates, that it is now being said that he attain

his

> 'true nature' from the dissolution of that foreign aspect(in Deep

> Sleep)." Sutra Bhasya 3-2-7

>

> " When the two adjuncts of waking and dream

disappear,

> THEN THE SELF REMAINS IN HIS TRUE NATURE IN DEEP SLEEP. It is

then

> said that 'he merges as if' (praleena iva ) in Deep Sleep." Sutra

> Bhasya 1-1-9

>

> In other words, from the standpoint of the direct experience of

> 'Deep Sleep', it is only the Pure Self, Pure Being, Pure

Consciousness

> and Pure Bliss. (I refer all those interest in this subject i.e.

that

> in the state of Deep Sleep one is in fact remaining in his own true

> nature of Eternal Consciousness to see what Shankara has to say in

his

> Brhidaranyaka Bhasaya(4-3-21 to 4-3-32) ).

>

> Thus, just like in Nivikalpa Samadhi whereby one "becomes" one

> with the Non Dual Self, so also in Deep Sleep one "becomes' one

with

> the Non Dual Self. But in both these states there is no knowledge

of

> this fact. And therefore this knowledge has to be attained in the

> waking state where there obtains the distinctions of Guru and

Shastra

> etc.

>

> Shankara has given us a comprehensive view of the totality

of

> human experiences by viewing ALL STATES of experience as falling

into

> one of two categories. 'Darshana Vriti' (a state in which one is

aware

> of something) and 'Adarshana Vriti (a state in which one is not

aware

> of anything). These two categories completely exhaust the

> possibilities of human experience, as there is no possible third

> alternative. Thus, states like waking, dream, mystical,

hallucinatory,

> daydreaming, imaginary, etc, are all states in which one is aware

of

> something, and states like Deep Sleep, Coma, Faint, Nirvikalpa ,

etc.,

> are all states in which one is not aware of anything. Now the

> Witnessing Consciousness which is always present, unchanging, and

> beyond all states.(weather or not something is appearing), and

which

> testifies to their presence and absence, is the Non Dual -True Self

of

> each of us. And to intuit this universal fact of experience is

> referred to in Advaita Vedanta as attaining the 'Direct Knowledge'

of

> the Self. This Direct Knowledge of the Self can not be had by

> attaining any new state, be it "Darshana Vriti" or Adarshna Vriti.

>

> The reason why Shankara doesn't spend much time in refuting

> Patanjalis' dualistic Yoga Darshana, or the practice of 'The

restraint

> of all mental modifications' (Chita Vriti Nirodha) which results in

> Nirvikalpa Samadhi, as a means to know the Self, is because after

> having completely demolished the dualistic Samkhya Darshana in his

> Sutra Bhasya, there was no need to separately refute the Patanjali

> Yogins, or their 'yogic methods' which leads to Nirvikalpa Samadhi,

> because their metaphysical philosophy was almost the same as the

> Samkhyas. This is based on the Sutra which states ; 'Thereby Yoga

> Darshana also stands refuted.' However the doctrine that the

> attainment of Nirvikalpa Samadhi, or the 'restraint of the mental

> modifications'( chita Vriti Nirodha), leads to the 'Direct

Knowledge'

> of the self is thoroughly examined and refuted by Shankaras' direct

> disciple Sureswaracharya in his Brhadaranyaka Vartica, as well as

his

> Sambandha Vartica. I will end this post with a quote from this text

as

> well as the sub-commentary by AanandaGiri.

>

> " In states like 'Deep Sleep', etc., even

though

> there are no mental impressions, there is no release; nor in the

> absence of the of the functioning of the means of valid knowledge

in

> those states does the inner Self manifest itself." Sub. Com.-" By

the

> mere suppression of mental impressions one cannot attain release,

> There are no mental impressions in sleep; but sleep is not release.

It

> cannot be said that there are mental impressions in sleep, for if

that

> were so sleep would not be sleep. If it be urged that in sleep the

> mental impressions remain in the form of their cause, via.

Ignorance,

> then it is only the removal of that cause that would lead to

> release. And the removal of Ignorance is possible only through

> Knowledge. As for what was said, that even without the functioning

of

> the 'means of knowledge' (pramanas), the Self shines when the

mental

> impressions are removed, we have to make this observation; THAT

> WITHOUT PRAMANA (A MEANS OF KNOWLEDGE) THE SELF-MANIFESTATION OF

THE

> SELF CANNOT BE KNOWN." Sambhanda Vartica 463-464a.

>

> Om Tat Sat

> Atmachaitanya

>

>

>

>

>

> advaitin, K Kathirasan NCS <kkathir@n...> wrote:

> > Namaste Viswanathanji,

> >

> > Please see my comments below (my previous reply snipped):

> >

> > > I consider Nirvikalpa Samadhi being an experience, which

happens

> only when

> > > the limited self completely drops and in that experience the

> luminous Self

> > > is revealed. To make sense out of that experience one has to go

to

> > > Scriptures or Guru's like Ramana, which or who help acquire the

> knowledge.

> > > The objectification of Self occurs only in the normal ignorant

> state and

> > > not

> > > during Nirvikalpa Samadhi, since the "I" dissolves into the

Self.

> In the

> > > normal state to which one returns after Nirvikalpa Samadhi, that

> > > experience

> > > may still be objectified if there is lack of true knowledge from

> > > Scriptures

> > > and real Guru's (There may be visible exceptions to this in

cases

> such as

> > > Ramana). On the other hand, if the person continues to reside

in

> the

> > > Nirvikalpa Samadhi state, the objectification vanishes

completely

> even

> > > during the three known states, viz., i.e. waking, dreaming &

deep

> sleep.

> > > Many times the true Guru's and Saints, although residing in

> Nirvikalpa

> > > Samadhi all the time, may talk to the visitors, questioners, and

> > > disciples,

> > > as though it is objectified.

> > >

> > >

> > KK: May I know what is this limited self which completely drops?

If

> you are

> > referring to the body-mind-sense complex, then I can agree with

you

> sir. But

> > what we say is that the Self is always revealing itself as

> > Awareness/Consciousness in the 3 states of experience.

Therefore,

> there is

> > no need for a Samadhi experience to reveal the Atma. Shastra

> pramana and

> > shraddha are enough. It sounds impossible for anyone to reside in

> the

> > Nirvikalpa Samadhi all the time (if we consider it to be a

mindless

> state),

> > because we can't account for his transactions with the world

without

> a mind.

> > But it can be a possibility if we take that Nirvikalpa state as a

> state

> > where there are no erroneous notions about oneself, in other

words

> the

> > absence of identification with body-sense-mind complex. Then it

> will make

> > alot of sense.

> >

> >

> > > That knowing "I am Atma" is more than the knowledge gained from

> books and

> > > teachers. The knowing, in my parlance, needs in addition the

> experience,

> > > which exists only for the normal ignorant state. Knowing and

being

> > > established in "I am Atma" are both descriptions of experiences

> with

> > > reference to the ignorant normal state. In that established

state

> the

> > > knowledge itself vanishes; just the being exists. Such a being

is

> > > liberated.

> > > This may be semantics for some and not acceptable for purists,

who

> believe

> > > knowledge is the only source for liberation.

> > >

> > >

> > KK: From what I learnt, the mahavakya 'Tat Tvam Asi' (not

Samadhi)

> is enough

> > to liberate the Jiva provided he/she has the necessary

> qualifications such

> > as Shama, Dama, mumukshutvam etc....

> >

> > > The point raised above may be much more controversial! My

belief

> is that

> > > the

> > > Nirvikalpa Samadhi experience in itself provides an open window

> for the

> > > true

> > > knowledge that Atma is the Satchitananda swarupam, which can

occur

> through

> > > Grace, since the ignorance is removed.

> > >

> > >

> > KK: Sir, the above is very speculative and most of it all it

> mystifies

> > Vedanta thereby making it non-communicable wisdom.

> >

> >

> > > Lord Krishna is teaching Arjuna who is the normal ignorant and

> confused

> > > person in the battle field, similar to most humans in their

normal

> state

> > > of

> > > day-to-day existence. Arjuna was there in the battle field to

> correct the

> > > wrongs done to the Pandavas and he had to perform his dharmic

duty

> as a

> > > Kshatrya. Lord Krishna had to educate Arjuna on his dharmic

duty.

> If, on

> > > the

> > > other hand, Lord Krishna had given Arjuna a taste of Nirvikalpa

> Samadhi at

> > > that time, on returning back to the normal ignorant state

Arjuna

> would

> > > have

> > > been a total wreck with enormous confusion and would have

failed

> to

> > > perform

> > > his dharmic duty.

> > >

> > KK: This proves that Nirvikalpa Samadhi cannot remove the

ignorant

> person's

> > confusion and problems, thereby making a person a total wreck.

> Swami

> > Chinmayanandaji once said that moksha is NOT 'Freedon from

action'

> BUT

> > 'Freedon in action'. I think his statement truly the Vedantic

> concept of

> > moksha. It views a mukta as not a total wreck but a person who

> engages in

> > the world yet knowing himself to be free from it. So if

Nirvikalpa

> Samadhi

> > makes a person a total wreck with enormous confusion, it can

never

> be a

> > worthy accomplishment. Moreover you mentioned that the Samadhi

> experience

> > 'opens a window for the true knowledge that Atma is the

> Satchitananda

> > swarupam, which can occur through Grace, since the ignorance is

> removed'. So

> > where is the place for confusion when ignorance is removed and

can a

> person

> > be a total wreck after knowing oneself to be Satchitananda?

> >

> > > Also for normal ignorant humans suddenly jumping into

Nirvikalpa

> Samadhi

> > > (even if it is possible) may be disasterous, if some knowing

had

> not

> > > occurred earlier in this or earlier life. This is where the

> Scriptures and

> > > real Guru's are of great help, since they can help trigger the

> forgotten

> > > knowledge or knowing. Often times, in such cases, reading

> Scriptures and

> > > listening to teachers provide a basis to gain true knowledge by

> oneself.

> > > Sorry. Once again my response is wordy. Hopefully it is clear

> enough.

> > >

> > KK: This will be my last post on this topic. Perhaps other

members

> can

> > contribute. I would like to thank everyone for their patience

with

> my

> > rattlings and apologies if it has taken too much of your time.

[Guest guest]

Dear Sri Harsha,

 

I am sorry that you think that my views are 'rigid' because I

will not accept the dogma that the attainment of Nirvikalpa Samadhi

can directly result in the 'Direct Knowledge of the Self. However when

you state that " The goal is to attain Self-Realization by whatever

means....Even in the Bhagavad Gita, Sri Krishna mentions several

paths, if the Lord himself is flexible, there is no requirement for us

to be rigid in our views", you obviouly have accepted the viewpoint

that there are many ways that lead to the 'Direct Knowledge of the

Self, or 'Self Realization'. ( A view made popular by Swami

Vivekanada and his desciples whereby Karma Yoga, Bhakti Yoga, Raga

Yoga, and Jnana Yoga, are made out as four different paths, each one

independently capable of leading the seeker to 'Self Realization'.and

depending on ones inclinations, or capacities or 'nature' one could

choose anyone of these paths, as they all lead to the same

Truth!)

 

But I respectfully submit to you that this notion is false, and

that according to the Upanishads, Gita and Param Atma Sri Krishna,

Shankaracharya, Reason and Experience, the only means for removing the

Ignorance that I am an embodied being, is the 'Direct Knowledge of the

Self', or 'Self Realization',and this Knnowledge only comes from the

teaching of the Vedantic Scriptures (Shabda Jnana. Vakya Jnana,

Shastra Janita Jnana etc,) and not directly from 'Karma Yoga' Bhakti

Yoga' 'Raja Yoga' Self Inquiry of asking the question Who am I?,nor

from athe attainment of Nirvkalpa Samadhi, nor from the complete

surrender to the Lord'

 

Om Tat Sat

Atmachaitanya

 

-A-- In advaitin, "harshaimtm" <harsha-hkl@h...> wrote:

> The goal is to attain Self-Realization by whatever means available

> and natural to one. Study of scriptures and hearing of the words of

> the Guru is not incompatible with meditation, contemplation, and

self-

> inquiry. Sages and scriptures declare that Self-Knowledge is

revealed

> to a calm and peaceful mind surrendered to the feet of the Lord or

> the Guru who stands for the Lord in human form and whose very words

> carry the essence of Truth and the full force of scriptures.

>

> What is so difficult about understanding all this?

>

> Leaving aside the notion of Nirvikalpa, Savikalpa, Sahaj and so on,

> one can reflect on one's current state and where one is. Since the

> Upanishads declare that only Self Is, one must Recognize the Self in

> the present moment in one's own Being. If that is done, it is more

> than enough. One need not be anxious about demonstrating that there

> is only one valid way to Realize the Self and that certain words or

> concepts like Nirvikalpa are inherently flawed.

>

> Even in Bhagavad Gita, Sri Krishna mentions several paths. If the

> Lord Himself is flexible, there is no requirement on us to be rigid

> in our views.

>

> Love to all

> Harsha

>

>

> advaitin, "atmachaitanya108" <stadri@a...> wrote:

> > Dear K Kathirasan NCS,

> >

> > It is evident from the trend of your recent posts,

> that

> > you are really trying to determine the value of Nirvikalpa Samadhi

> > for the attainment of the Knowledge of the Self. There are two

> popular

> > views which many posters participating in this discussion seem to

> be

> > upholding: 1) 'The Upanishadic teaching can only yield 'Indirect

> > Knowledge' of the Self, and for the 'Direct knowledge' of the

Self,

> > Nirvikalpa Samadhi is absolutely necessary.' -or- 2) 'While it may

> be

> > the case that some aspirants can get the 'Direct Knowledge' of the

> > Self merely from the Upanishadic teaching, nevertheless, others

> can

> > get that same 'Direct Knowledge' of the Self from Nirvikalpa

> Samadhi

> > independent of the Upanishadic teachings.

> >

> > I will attempt to show that both these views are totally

> > wrong, and that Nirvikalpa Samadhi is not only UTTERLY USELESS

> for

> > the attainment of the 'Direct Knowledge' of the Self, but that it

> has

> > many potential defects, perhaps the most common being

> the 'Spiritual

> > Arrogance' that is often produced in those who claim to have

> attained

> > such an 'exalted' state (i.e.:" I had Nirvikalpa Samadhi and you

> have

> > not.". " I now have the 'Direct Knowledge' of the Self, because I

> > attained Nirvikalpa, and others who have not attained Nirvikalpa

> can

> > not have the 'Direct Knowledge' of the Self.I was in Nirvikalpa

> for

> > three days, and you were in Nirvkalpa for only three

> minutes.". "My

> > Guru was in Nirvikalpa for three weeks!". and other such

> egotistical

> > nonsense.) And in addition I will try to demonstrate that,( in

> spite

> > of any declarations made to the contrary by modern day Advaita

> > teachers, be it Ramana Maharshi, Swami Chinmayananda, Swami

> > Vivekanada, Kanchi Shankaracarya, or anyone else who you care to

> cite

> > as an 'authority') the teaching that the attainment of Nirvikalpa

> > Samadhi is either, 'the ONLY means for the attainment of

> the 'Direct

> > Knowledge' of the Self', or, 'that it is merely ONE OF THE MEANS

> for

> > the attainment of the 'Direct Knowledge' of the Self', goes

against

> > the Vedantic Scriptures, Sri Shankaras' and Sureswaras'

> commentaries,

> > Reason , and Experience (Sruti,Yukti Anubhava Virudhaha)!!

> >

> >

> > Let us begin by examining exactly what this state of

> Nirvikalpa

> > Samadhi can and cannot be. The word Nirvikalpa literally means

> > 'without thought' or 'without imagination', however, in a more

> general

> > sense, it can be described as a state in which all distinctions

> have

> > subsided. This includes not only the distinctions of the 'mind'

and

> > the 'senses' but also of 'time' and 'space', as well as. the

> absence

> > of the Subject and the Object, the absence of an Experiencer and

> the

> > Experienced, the absence of the Agent and his Action, the absence

> of a

> > Knower and the thing Known. In short it refers to a state in which

> the

> > awareness of any duality has ceased. Now I ask you, as you

yourself

> > have asked, "How is it possible for a person to know the Self to

be

> > Satchitananda Svarupam (of the nature of Absolute Existence,

> Absolute

> > Consciousness, Absolute Bliss) in the state of Nirvikalpa

Samadhi?"

> He

> > cannot! In that state he can't know himself to be the Self, an

> > individual, or a broomstick. If he "knows:" anything, "realizes"

> > anything, experiences anything, he is by definition not in the

> state

> > of Nirvikalpa Samadhi. To think otherwise commits one to the dogma

> > that Knowledge can arise even in the absence of a 'means of

> > knowledge'. In this state of Nirvikalpa Samadhi there is no

> > functioning of the senses or the mind or the Upanishadic teaching,

> how

> > can the knowledge of anything arise?

> >

> > There are some who would counter these objections by

admitting

> > that while there are no 'means of knowledge' functioning in the

> state

> > of Nirvikalpa Samadhi, and therefore the 'knowledge of the Self

> does

> > not arise in that state, nevertheless, when one comes out of that

> > state he is able to recollect his experience of the 'absence of

all

> > duality' or to put it in other words, to recollect his 'experience

> of

> > Non Duality' and this is what is indicated by saying that he has

> > attained the 'Direct Knowledge' of the Self, or that Nirvikalpa

> > Samadhi is the 'means' of Knowing the Self. But this argument

> cannot

> > be accepted, for if it were true that merely by attaining a state

> in

> > which 'the awareness of all duality has ceased' or one in

> which 'Non

> > Duality alone obtained' one could then come to Know the Self, then

> it

> > must be specified why it is the case that in other states in which

> the

> > experience of duality has totally ceased, such as faint, coma,

deep

> > sleep, etc, the knowledge of the Self does not arise. No one ever

> > assumes that merely because he fainted, was in a coma, or fell

into

> > deep sleep, and thereby was not aware of any duality, of any

> Subject

> > or Object, of any world or an experiencer of that world, that the

> > dualistic world was not then existing during those states, or that

> the

> > dualistic world doesn't exit or that it is not real. In the same

> way,

> > no one can claim to' know' that 'the world of duality' which was

> > appearing before the state of Nirvikalpa Samadhi and which then

> ceased

> > to appear during the state of Nirvilapa Samadhi, and which made

its

> > appearance again after the state of Nirvikalpa, was not existing

> > during that state, nor that it doesn't exist ,nor that its not

> real,

> > merely because he was not aware of it during his temporary state

of

> > Nirvikalpa Samadhi. (And this is exactly what Patanjali himself

> > concluded after attaining his Nirvikalpa Samadhi, I.E: that in

fact

> > the 'world of duality' does exit, even during the state of

> Nirvikalpa,

> > but, he conjectured, that by attaining the Nirvikalpa state, one

> could

> > come to realize that the Self is eternally free from and

unattached

> to

> > the 'real world of duality').

> >

> > But this contradicts the 'Direct Knowledge'

> of

> > the Self as expounded in the Upanishads, For the Self of the

> > Upanishads is Non Dual, There is no second thing called the 'world

> of

> > duality' which can be said to exist or to be real. In fact, even

> the

> > so called multiplicity of states called waking, dream, deep sleep,

> > fainting ,coma ,Nirvikalpa, hypnotic, mystical. hallucinatory,

> etc.,

> > are all temporary, all changing, and ultimately all false. They

are

> in

> > truth nothing but the Self misconceived, and this Direct Knowledge

> > comes only from the Upanishadic teaching and not from the

> attainment

> > of any new 'state'. Attaining a new state is not a means (pramana)

> to

> > know the Self. He who thinks that he is attaining different states

> is

> > not a knower the Self, the Upanishada Purusha, the Self which is

> > exclusively taught by the Upanishads, and which is Unchanging,

> whose

> > eternal nature is Nirvikalpa and who is beyond all time and space

> and

> > so beyond all transitory 'states'.

> >

> > At this point, it is easy to imagine how all the supporters

> of

> > Nirvikalpa Samadhi are ready to point out the Himalayan blunder

> that

> > I have committed. The unforgivable error of having equated the

> sublime

> > state of Nirvikalpa Samadhi, in which one is "Totally Conscious",

> and

> > which is very hard to attain, and which the great Sages of the

> past

> > and present have described with the highest acumens,-- with the

> common

> > state of Deep Sleep, in which one is "Totally Unconscious" and

> > "Ignorant of his true Self", and which is attained by all and

> sundry

> > without any effort whatsoever! Yet this identification is no

> personal

> > blunder of my own, for this same identification has been made by

> > the Upanishads and Sri Shankara himself:

> > "Just as in Deep Sleep and Samadhi, though there

> is a

> > natural eradication of all distinctions"….(Here Shankara

> clearly

> > identifies both states, as states in which one is no longer aware

> of

> > any duality).". But, because there is the persistence of

Ignorance

> > (in both these states)"…(Here Shankara indicates that by

> attaining

> > either Deep Sleep or Samadhi, Ignorace is not de

> stroyed)…"duality

> once

> > again makes it appearance"…But for the Muktas, duality does

> not

> > appear again, FOR IN THEIR CASE (unlike those who have merely gone

> to

> > Deep Sleep or attained Samadhi) Ignorance has been destroyed by

> > Knowledge (obtained from the teachings of the Scripture and

Guru.)"

> > Sutra bashya 2-1-9

> >

>

> >

>

> > And while it can be admitted that

> > there are differences to be noted with regards to how one may

enter

> > into the state of Nivikalpa Samadhi, as opposed to the state of

> Deep

> > Sleep, as well as to the differences that obtain after one comes

> out

> > of Nirvikalpa Samadhi, as opposed to how one comes out of Deep

> Sleep,

> > nevertheless, the 'experience' in both these states MUST be

> identical,

> > For if there were any distinctions in one state that was not

> > obtaining in the other, then that very 'distinction' would

> disqualifiy

> > it for belonging to a state in which all distinctions have ceased,

> be

> > it Nirvkalpa Samadhi or Deep Sleep. If it is asserted that in

> > Nirvikalpa state one is aware of an 'Infinite Bliss', an

> > 'Inconceivable Peace', a' Non-Dual Self' or any other thing that

> does

> > not appear in Deep Sleep, then you have given up the position that

> the

> > Nirvikalpa state is really Nirvikalpa , for the experience of

> anything

> > requires the minimum duality of an experiencer and the thing that

> he

> > is experiencing, be it Bliss, Peace or Non Duality. Actually, the

> > cause of this confusion can be laid at the feet of those champions

> of

> > Nirvikalpa Samadhi who look upon Deep Sleep as merely a state of

> > unconsciousness, disregarding or misinterpreting what the Vedantic

> > Scriptures, as well as what Shankaras' commentaries have to say

> about

> > it.:

> >

> > To begin with, while it is true that the common man takes

> > himself to be 'Ignorant ' or 'Unconscious' in the state of Deep

> Sleep,

> > the Sruti presents us with another veiwpont-the viewpoint of the

> > actual experience of Deep sleep. From this standpoint the Sruti

> > describes Deep Sleep as follows:

> >

> > "That (state of Deep Sleep) is his form-beyond desires,

> free

> > from evils and fearless. As a man fully embraced by his beloved

> wife,

> > does not know anything at all, either internal or external, so

does

> > the individual self, fully embraced by the Supreme Self, not know

> > anything at all, either internal or external. That is His form-in

> > which all objects of desire have been attained, all desires are

the

> > Self, and which is free from desire and devoid of Grief"

> > Brhadaranyaka .4-3-21

> >

> > (In his commentary on this verse Shankara clearly explains

> > that the reason one does not know the Self in Deep Sleep, or

> anything

> > else, is not because one is then Unconscious or Ignorant, but

> because

> > of Unity , because he is then the Non Dual Self alone.)

> >

> > "In this state a father is no father, a mother no

> mother,

> > worlds no worlds, the gods no gods, the Vedas no Vedas. In this

> state,

> > a thief is no thief, the killer of a noble Brahmana no killer, an

> > outcast no outcaste, …a monk no monk, a hermit no hermit. This

> form

> of

> > His is untouched by good work and untouched by evil work, for He

is

> > then beyond all the woes of the heart.That he does not see in

> that

> > state is (NOT BECAUSE HE IS IGNORANT OR UNCONSCIOUS BUT) because,

> > THOUGH SEEING THEN, he does not see; for the vision of the witness

> can

> > never be lost, because it is IMPERISHABLE. But there is not that

> > second thing separate from it which it could see." Brhad. Upa.

> > 4-3-22,23

> >

> > "….Where for that sleeping one, he doesn't desire

> any

> > desirable thing, nor does he see any Dream, that is the state of

> Deep

> > Sleep." (Brhadaranyaka 4-3-19,)

> >

> > Here 'Deep Sleep' actually means one's own true nature of

> > being bereft of the duality that appears in both Waking and Dream.

> > Because Waking and Dream states are false appearances, it is only

> from

> > the point of view of the waking state that one imagines that Deep

> > Sleep is a state of Unconsciousness or Ignorance. In other words

we

> > have superimposed the concept of Deep Sleep on the Real Self from

> the

> > biased viewpoint of the Waking state. But because in truth, so

> called

> > 'Deep Sleep' is our true nature, and since ones own true nature

> can

> > never be given up, how we were in Deep Sleep is exactly how we are

> > right now. But because of ignorance we have identified with the

> > adjuncts that are appearing in waking and dream and from that

> > perspective only it is said that one 'attains his own true nature

> in

> > Deep Sleep( Svapati=He Sleeps= Sva (His own Self) Apati(He enters)

> As

> > Shankara puts it:

> >

> > "Besides there is no time when the individual has

> not

> > become one with the Absolute Brahman, for one's intrinsic nature

> can

> > never disappear. It is only relative to the 'seeming' foreign

> aspect

> > which he assumes in dream and waking, owing to the contact of

> > conditioning associates, that it is now being said that he attain

> his

> > 'true nature' from the dissolution of that foreign aspect(in Deep

> > Sleep)." Sutra Bhasya 3-2-7

> >

> > " When the two adjuncts of waking and dream

> disappear,

> > THEN THE SELF REMAINS IN HIS TRUE NATURE IN DEEP SLEEP. It is

> then

> > said that 'he merges as if' (praleena iva ) in Deep Sleep." Sutra

> > Bhasya 1-1-9

> >

> > In other words, from the standpoint of the direct experience of

> > 'Deep Sleep', it is only the Pure Self, Pure Being, Pure

> Consciousness

> > and Pure Bliss. (I refer all those interest in this subject i.e.

> that

> > in the state of Deep Sleep one is in fact remaining in his own

true

> > nature of Eternal Consciousness to see what Shankara has to say in

> his

> > Brhidaranyaka Bhasaya(4-3-21 to 4-3-32) ).

> >

> > Thus, just like in Nivikalpa Samadhi whereby one "becomes" one

> > with the Non Dual Self, so also in Deep Sleep one "becomes' one

> with

> > the Non Dual Self. But in both these states there is no knowledge

> of

> > this fact. And therefore this knowledge has to be attained in the

> > waking state where there obtains the distinctions of Guru and

> Shastra

> > etc.

> >

> > Shankara has given us a comprehensive view of the totality

> of

> > human experiences by viewing ALL STATES of experience as falling

> into

> > one of two categories. 'Darshana Vriti' (a state in which one is

> aware

> > of something) and 'Adarshana Vriti (a state in which one is not

> aware

> > of anything). These two categories completely exhaust the

> > possibilities of human experience, as there is no possible third

> > alternative. Thus, states like waking, dream, mystical,

> hallucinatory,

> > daydreaming, imaginary, etc, are all states in which one is aware

> of

> > something, and states like Deep Sleep, Coma, Faint, Nirvikalpa ,

> etc.,

> > are all states in which one is not aware of anything. Now the

> > Witnessing Consciousness which is always present, unchanging, and

> > beyond all states.(weather or not something is appearing), and

> which

> > testifies to their presence and absence, is the Non Dual -True

Self

> of

> > each of us. And to intuit this universal fact of experience is

> > referred to in Advaita Vedanta as attaining the 'Direct Knowledge'

> of

> > the Self. This Direct Knowledge of the Self can not be had by

> > attaining any new state, be it "Darshana Vriti" or Adarshna Vriti.

> >

> > The reason why Shankara doesn't spend much time in refuting

> > Patanjalis' dualistic Yoga Darshana, or the practice of 'The

> restraint

> > of all mental modifications' (Chita Vriti Nirodha) which results

in

> > Nirvikalpa Samadhi, as a means to know the Self, is because after

> > having completely demolished the dualistic Samkhya Darshana in his

> > Sutra Bhasya, there was no need to separately refute the Patanjali

> > Yogins, or their 'yogic methods' which leads to Nirvikalpa

Samadhi,

> > because their metaphysical philosophy was almost the same as the

> > Samkhyas. This is based on the Sutra which states ; 'Thereby Yoga

> > Darshana also stands refuted.' However the doctrine that the

> > attainment of Nirvikalpa Samadhi, or the 'restraint of the mental

> > modifications'( chita Vriti Nirodha), leads to the 'Direct

> Knowledge'

> > of the self is thoroughly examined and refuted by Shankaras'

direct

> > disciple Sureswaracharya in his Brhadaranyaka Vartica, as well as

> his

> > Sambandha Vartica. I will end this post with a quote from this

text

> as

> > well as the sub-commentary by AanandaGiri.

> >

> > " In states like 'Deep Sleep', etc., even

> though

> > there are no mental impressions, there is no release; nor in the

> > absence of the of the functioning of the means of valid knowledge

> in

> > those states does the inner Self manifest itself." Sub. Com.-" By

> the

> > mere suppression of mental impressions one cannot attain release,

> > There are no mental impressions in sleep; but sleep is not

release.

> It

> > cannot be said that there are mental impressions in sleep, for if

> that

> > were so sleep would not be sleep. If it be urged that in sleep the

> > mental impressions remain in the form of their cause, via.

> Ignorance,

> > then it is only the removal of that cause that would lead to

> > release. And the removal of Ignorance is possible only through

> > Knowledge. As for what was said, that even without the functioning

> of

> > the 'means of knowledge' (pramanas), the Self shines when the

> mental

> > impressions are removed, we have to make this observation; THAT

> > WITHOUT PRAMANA (A MEANS OF KNOWLEDGE) THE SELF-MANIFESTATION OF

> THE

> > SELF CANNOT BE KNOWN." Sambhanda Vartica 463-464a.

> >

> > Om Tat Sat

> > Atmachaitanya

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > advaitin, K Kathirasan NCS <kkathir@n...> wrote:

> > > Namaste Viswanathanji,

> > >

> > > Please see my comments below (my previous reply snipped):

> > >

> > > > I consider Nirvikalpa Samadhi being an experience, which

> happens

> > only when

> > > > the limited self completely drops and in that experience the

> > luminous Self

> > > > is revealed. To make sense out of that experience one has to

go

> to

> > > > Scriptures or Guru's like Ramana, which or who help acquire

the

> > knowledge.

> > > > The objectification of Self occurs only in the normal ignorant

> > state and

> > > > not

> > > > during Nirvikalpa Samadhi, since the "I" dissolves into the

> Self.

> > In the

> > > > normal state to which one returns after Nirvikalpa Samadhi,

that

> > > > experience

> > > > may still be objectified if there is lack of true knowledge

from

> > > > Scriptures

> > > > and real Guru's (There may be visible exceptions to this in

> cases

> > such as

> > > > Ramana). On the other hand, if the person continues to reside

> in

> > the

> > > > Nirvikalpa Samadhi state, the objectification vanishes

> completely

> > even

> > > > during the three known states, viz., i.e. waking, dreaming &

> deep

> > sleep.

> > > > Many times the true Guru's and Saints, although residing in

> > Nirvikalpa

> > > > Samadhi all the time, may talk to the visitors, questioners,

and

> > > > disciples,

> > > > as though it is objectified.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > KK: May I know what is this limited self which completely drops?

> If

> > you are

> > > referring to the body-mind-sense complex, then I can agree with

> you

> > sir. But

> > > what we say is that the Self is always revealing itself as

> > > Awareness/Consciousness in the 3 states of experience.

> Therefore,

> > there is

> > > no need for a Samadhi experience to reveal the Atma. Shastra

> > pramana and

> > > shraddha are enough. It sounds impossible for anyone to reside

in

> > the

> > > Nirvikalpa Samadhi all the time (if we consider it to be a

> mindless

> > state),

> > > because we can't account for his transactions with the world

> without

> > a mind.

> > > But it can be a possibility if we take that Nirvikalpa state as

a

> > state

> > > where there are no erroneous notions about oneself, in other

> words

> > the

> > > absence of identification with body-sense-mind complex. Then it

> > will make

> > > alot of sense.

> > >

> > >

> > > > That knowing "I am Atma" is more than the knowledge gained

from

> > books and

> > > > teachers. The knowing, in my parlance, needs in addition the

> > experience,

> > > > which exists only for the normal ignorant state. Knowing and

> being

> > > > established in "I am Atma" are both descriptions of

experiences

> > with

> > > > reference to the ignorant normal state. In that established

> state

> > the

> > > > knowledge itself vanishes; just the being exists. Such a being

> is

> > > > liberated.

> > > > This may be semantics for some and not acceptable for purists,

> who

> > believe

> > > > knowledge is the only source for liberation.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > KK: From what I learnt, the mahavakya 'Tat Tvam Asi' (not

> Samadhi)

> > is enough

> > > to liberate the Jiva provided he/she has the necessary

> > qualifications such

> > > as Shama, Dama, mumukshutvam etc....

> > >

> > > > The point raised above may be much more controversial! My

> belief

> > is that

> > > > the

> > > > Nirvikalpa Samadhi experience in itself provides an open

window

> > for the

> > > > true

> > > > knowledge that Atma is the Satchitananda swarupam, which can

> occur

> > through

> > > > Grace, since the ignorance is removed.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > KK: Sir, the above is very speculative and most of it all it

> > mystifies

> > > Vedanta thereby making it non-communicable wisdom.

> > >

> > >

> > > > Lord Krishna is teaching Arjuna who is the normal ignorant and

> > confused

> > > > person in the battle field, similar to most humans in their

> normal

> > state

> > > > of

> > > > day-to-day existence. Arjuna was there in the battle field to

> > correct the

> > > > wrongs done to the Pandavas and he had to perform his dharmic

> duty

> > as a

> > > > Kshatrya. Lord Krishna had to educate Arjuna on his dharmic

> duty.

> > If, on

> > > > the

> > > > other hand, Lord Krishna had given Arjuna a taste of

Nirvikalpa

> > Samadhi at

> > > > that time, on returning back to the normal ignorant state

> Arjuna

> > would

> > > > have

> > > > been a total wreck with enormous confusion and would have

> failed

> > to

> > > > perform

> > > > his dharmic duty.

> > > >

> > > KK: This proves that Nirvikalpa Samadhi cannot remove the

> ignorant

> > person's

> > > confusion and problems, thereby making a person a total wreck.

> > Swami

> > > Chinmayanandaji once said that moksha is NOT 'Freedon from

> action'

> > BUT

> > > 'Freedon in action'. I think his statement truly the Vedantic

> > concept of

> > > moksha. It views a mukta as not a total wreck but a person who

> > engages in

> > > the world yet knowing himself to be free from it. So if

> Nirvikalpa

> > Samadhi

> > > makes a person a total wreck with enormous confusion, it can

> never

> > be a

> > > worthy accomplishment. Moreover you mentioned that the Samadhi

> > experience

> > > 'opens a window for the true knowledge that Atma is the

> > Satchitananda

> > > swarupam, which can occur through Grace, since the ignorance is

> > removed'. So

> > > where is the place for confusion when ignorance is removed and

> can a

> > person

> > > be a total wreck after knowing oneself to be Satchitananda?

> > >

> > > > Also for normal ignorant humans suddenly jumping into

> Nirvikalpa

> > Samadhi

> > > > (even if it is possible) may be disasterous, if some knowing

> had

> > not

> > > > occurred earlier in this or earlier life. This is where the

> > Scriptures and

> > > > real Guru's are of great help, since they can help trigger the

> > forgotten

> > > > knowledge or knowing. Often times, in such cases, reading

> > Scriptures and

> > > > listening to teachers provide a basis to gain true knowledge

by

> > oneself.

> > > > Sorry. Once again my response is wordy. Hopefully it is clear

> > enough.

> > > >

> > > KK: This will be my last post on this topic. Perhaps other

> members

> > can

> > > contribute. I would like to thank everyone for their patience

> with

> > my

> > > rattlings and apologies if it has taken too much of your time.

[Guest guest]

Dear Atmachaitanyaji,

 

Namaskarams. I agree with every word that you have written on this topic. People

generally identify jnana with some kind of mystic experience. If we say that

jnana is the result of pramAaNavyApAra it looks too simplistic to many people

who are not exposed to the traditional teaching. Also reading only English

Translations of Shastra from books (Modern Vedanta) leads to further confusion.

Although many on this list are mumukshus, they still don't appreciate the

importance of studying shastra from a traditional Guru who is both srotriya and

brahmanishta, which is unfortunate. It is not enough if one is only a mumukshu.

The quantum jump from being a mumukshu to jijnasu which involves the recognition

of shastra and guruvakya as pramana is very important. One has to understand the

pratipAdaka-pratipAdya-sambandha (revealer-revealed relationship) between the

shastra and the self and the implications of it very clearly. Also one has to

understand that jnana alone is the direct means for Moksha and pramAnavyApAra is

the direct means for attaining that jnana and that pramAnavyApAra takes place

when the Guru teaches the Upanishad vakyas.

 

Another area of confusion is that people think advaita is achieved only when

dvaita is absent. If this is true then dvaita becomes real. If dvaita is real

then there is no advaita. So the teaching is not and cannot be 'advaita is there

when dvaita is absent'. The teaching is even when I am cognizing the

dvaitajagat, advaitam is satyam and that satyam is me, myself. If one does'nt

understand this then one thinks one has to achieve a state where is dvaita is

absent and gives undue importance to Samadhi. Samadhi is something great as an

accomplishment, but that also has to be looked at as a means to prepare oneself

to gain this knowledge. If this perspective is lost then Samadhi is taken as an

end in itself and then one remains an ignorant person.

 

with love and prayers,

 

Jaishankar

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Dear Atmachaitanya

 

In your long and well written treatise, you have made, I believe, some

fundamental errors. Please listen to the wise words of Harsha, for they are well

founded in experience of the absolute.

 

I have less, but still recognize that the ultimate guru resides within.

Resolutely adhering to the interpreted teachings of a great sage has no innate

value. Some of what you state is just plain wrong. For example:

> However the doctrine that the attainment of

> Nirvikalpa Samadhi, or the 'restraint of the mental

> modifications'( chita Vriti Nirodha), leads to the

> 'Direct Knowledge' of the self is thoroughly examined

> and refuted by Shankaras' direct disciple Sureswaracharya

> in his Brhadaranyaka Vartica, as well as his

> Sambandha Vartica.

 

Patanjali:

2. Yoga comes from transcending the processes of individual

consciousness,

3. then is one absorbed in the essence of the inner witness [the Self].

4. Otherwise, (we identify) with the form of those processes.

 

So he says that Yoga - Union (advaita) comes from transcending the thought

process, leaving pure awareness only. I can tell you from personal experience

that this is absolutely accurate and correct. Either Sureswaracharya was

misguided or (more likely) has been misinterpreted.

 

"Direct Knowledge" is a phrase that one might use to describe that state of pure

awareness - that which exists beyond thoughts. But of course we are using the

mundane to describe the subtle. And it is almost impossible to justify or

adequately describe to someone else. (As someone else mentioned, one has to take

such matters on good faith, until one has had the same experience.)

 

Samadhi is not a state of nothingness like deep sleep, it a state of

everythingness.

 

Throw away the books, meditate and know thy Self.

 

Love

 

Brian

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

--- Jaishankar Narayanan <srijai wrote:

> Dear Atmachaitanyaji,

>

> Namaskarams. I agree with every word that you have

> written on this topic. People generally identify

> jnana with some kind of mystic experience. If we

> say that jnana is the result of pramAaNavyApAra it

> looks too simplistic to many people who are not

> exposed to the traditional teaching. Also reading

> only English Translations of Shastra from books

> (Modern Vedanta) leads to further confusion.

> Although many on this list are mumukshus, they still

> don't appreciate the importance of studying shastra

> from a traditional Guru who is both srotriya and

> brahmanishta, which is unfortunate. It is not enough

> if one is only a mumukshu. The quantum jump from

> being a mumukshu to jijnasu which involves the

> recognition of shastra and guruvakya as pramana is

> very important. One has to understand the

> pratipAdaka-pratipAdya-sambandha (revealer-revealed

> relationship) between the shastra and the self and

> the implications of it very clearly. Also one has to

> understand that jnana alone is the direct means for

> Moksha and pramAnavyApAra is the direct means for

> attaining that jnana and that pramAnavyApAra takes

> place when the Guru teaches the Upanishad vakyas.

>

Dear Jaishankar Narayanan Ji,

Namaste.

To be exposed to traditional teaching from a competent

Guru is indeed a boon. I am desirious to know, Sir,

possible gaps between English-versions and traditional

teachings. I know this is an open question, but, maybe

you already are aware of some shortcomings. However,

please do not feel obliged to answer.

 

> Another area of confusion is that people think

> advaita is achieved only when dvaita is absent. If

> this is true then dvaita becomes real. If dvaita is

> real then there is no advaita. So the teaching is

> not and cannot be 'advaita is there when dvaita is

> absent'. The teaching is even when I am cognizing

> the dvaitajagat, advaitam is satyam and that satyam

> is me, myself. If one does'nt understand this then

> one thinks one has to achieve a state where is

> dvaita is absent and gives undue importance to

> Samadhi. Samadhi is something great as an

> accomplishment, but that also has to be looked at as

> a means to prepare oneself to gain this knowledge.

> If this perspective is lost then Samadhi is taken as

> an end in itself and then one remains an ignorant

> person.

>

This is truly a beautiful statement, which I would

like to summarise:

-- Truth of 'tatvamasi' while cognizing dvaita-jagat

-- Samadhi as only a tool to know the Truth.

 

Thanks and kind regards,

Raghava

 

 

 

Send your FREE holiday greetings online!

http://greetings.

[Guest guest]

Forwarded Message:

 

Members are advised to send their message directly to

the list - email address: advaitin

 

Thanks for your cooperation

 

Advaitin List Moderators

> "saddestragaishappyrajaok"

> <saddestragaishappyrajaok

> advaitin-owner

> Re: My thoughts on Samadhi & Advaita

>

> dear sirs,

>

> my own reflections reflect an awareness of being

> aware.

> this goal of lack of knowledge of deep sleep as life

> convinced the

> person in samadhi, as i am told i am, because dogma

> escaped

> the cycle of misunderstanding---i.e. nirvkalpa as

> reflection

> through philosophical awareness.

>

> All men naturally desire knowledge. An indication of

> this is our

> esteem for the senses; for apart from their use we

> esteem them

> for their own sake, and most of all the sense of

> sight. Not only

> with a view to action, but even when no action is

> contemplated,

> we prefer sight, generally speaking, to all the

> other senses.The

> reason of this is that of all the senses sight best

> helps us to

> know things, and reveals many distinctions.

>

> Besides the foregoing problems about the first

> principles we

> must also raise the question whether they are

> universal or such

> as we describe the particulars to be. For if they

> are universal,

> there will be no substances; for no common term

> denotes an

> individual thing, but a type; and substance is an

> individual

> thing.But if the common predicate be hypostatized as

> an

> individual thing, Shankara will be several beings:

> himself, and

> Man, and Animal--that is, if each predicate denotes

> one

> particular thing.These then are the consequences if

> the

> principles are universal. If on the other hand they

> are not

> universal but like particulars, they will not be

> knowable; for the

> knowledge of everything is universal. Hence there

> will have to be

> other universally predicated principles prior to the

> first principles,

> if there is to be any knowledge of them.

>

> Truth means to think these objects, and there is no

> falsity or

> deception, but only ignorance--not, however,

> ignorance such as

> blindness is; for blindness is like a total absence

> of the power of

> thinking. And it is obvious that with regard to

> immovable things

> also, if one assumes that there are immovable

> things, there is

> no deception in respect of time.E.g., if we suppose

> that the

> triangle is immutable, we shall not suppose that it

> sometimes

> contains two right angles and sometimes does not,

> for this

> would imply that it changes; but we may suppose that

> one thing

> has a certain property and another has not; e.g.,

> that no even

> number is a prime, or that some are primes and

> others are not.

> But about a single number we cannot be mistaken even

> in this

> way, for we can no longer suppose that one instance

> is of such a

> nature, and another not, but whether we are right or

> wrong, the

> fact is always the same.

>

> But if, as in the case of the phonetic elements,

> there is no

> reason why there should not be many A's and B's, and

> no "A

> itself" or "B itself" apart from these many, then on

> this basis there

> may be any number of similar syllables.

>

> atmachaitanya108 is a wise man. self manistation is

> unknowable---he proves it as well as shankaraji

> himself.

>

>

> Hare OM, Om

>

> Mr. O. Peshtin

>

> advaitin, "atmachaitanya108"

> <stadri@a...> wrote:

> > Dear Sri Harsha,

> >

> > I am sorry that you think that my views are

> 'rigid' because I

> > will not accept the dogma that the attainment of

> Nirvikalpa

> Samadhi

> > can directly result in the 'Direct Knowledge of

> the Self. However

> when

> > you state that " The goal is to attain

> Self-Realization by

> whatever

> > means....Even in the Bhagavad Gita, Sri Krishna

> mentions

> several

> > paths, if the Lord himself is flexible, there is

> no requirement for

> us

 

 

=====

Tips to Members from the Advaitin List Moderators

1) While replying, avoid repeating the entire message and be brief.

2) Be considerate to your fellow members and focus only on the subject matter.

3) When you are in doubt, contac the moderators at advatins

4) Split long articles into several parts and post them separately.

5) Suggestions/comments can be sent to advaitins

6) Advaitin Webspace: advaitin

 

 

 

Send your FREE holiday greetings online!

http://greetings.

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "egodust" <egodust@d...> wrote:

> hariH OM!

> namaste.

>

> we tend to glorify and "exotify" this [state of] nirvikalpa

samadhi.

> it simply implies "experience void of thought."

 

Is 'it' an experience Frank?

 

Col

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "atmachaitanya108" <stadri@a...> wrote:

> Dear Sri Harsha,

>

> I am sorry that you think that my views are 'rigid' because I

> will not accept the dogma that the attainment of Nirvikalpa Samadhi

> can directly result in the 'Direct Knowledge of the Self. However

when

> you state that " The goal is to attain Self-Realization by whatever

> means....Even in the Bhagavad Gita, Sri Krishna mentions several

> paths, if the Lord himself is flexible, there is no requirement for

us

> to be rigid in our views", you obviouly have accepted the viewpoint

> that there are many ways that lead to the 'Direct Knowledge of the

> Self, or 'Self Realization'. ( A view made popular by Swami

> Vivekanada and his desciples whereby Karma Yoga, Bhakti Yoga, Raga

> Yoga, and Jnana Yoga, are made out as four different paths, each

one

> independently capable of leading the seeker to 'Self

Realization'.and

> depending on ones inclinations, or capacities or 'nature' one could

> choose anyone of these paths, as they all lead to the same

> Truth!)

 

Hello. I think there is one mistake you are making & that is perhaps

presuming that nirvikalpa is 'a doing'.

 

Regards,

 

Colette

[Guest guest]

>K Kathirasan

 

Gosh I think you ask a lot of good questions. You have a very good

enquiring mind in my opinion.

>As I mentioned earlier, the question to be answered is: 'What happens

>in the state of Nirvikalpa Samadhi that makes the experiencer

>conclude that Atma is indeed Sat (existence eternal), Chit >>

(Consciousness, awareness) and Ananda (Happiness).

 

Everything else is absent. What is left is self aware conscious

existence without any distractions. There is no desire, no need in

that fullness.

 

"The nature of the essence, of the real self, is existence.

 

The "I" itself is existence ..

 

Essence is not simply the only part of us that is aware of its

existence.

 

It is what exists.

 

It is not only what exists, but it is also existence.

 

This existence is not only the nature of man but the nature of

everything.

 

It is the unity of all ..

 

A.H. Almaas "

 

 

 

 

advaitin, K Kathirasan NCS <kkathir@n...> wrote:

> Namaste Srinivasji,

>

how can a 'mindless' state like Nirvikalpa Samadhi

> remove my self-ignorance? This is my question sir. And I believe

that for

> knowledge to take place there must be a knower (pramata) and an

object to be

> known (prameya). If in the Nirvikalpa Samadhi state, the mind is

negated

> then who is the knower or the seer of the Self?

 

The Knower knows the Self in that state. One needn't conclude that

knowledge means a lot of things & concepts. Total Knowledge includes

the Knower rather than objectifying outside the Self in conceptual

things. In this sense, Knowledge is not only relative but absolute.

Usually conceptual knowledge excludes the Self. It is not unitary in

it's approach.

 

Col

[Guest guest]

Dear Brian,

I can't understand why people who claim to be Advaitins (Non

Dualist) have such a strong reluctance to acknowledge the

indisputable fact that Patanjalis Yoga Philosopy is dualistic through

and through. Duality is True before the attainment of the 'Direct

Knowledge' of the Self, and duality is True after the attainment of

the 'Direct Knowlege of the Self. Patanjali held that the 'Inner

Self'(THE WITNESS) was MANY IN NUMBER: You have your Witness, and I

have my Witness, and when one 'Witness' gets freed from his bondage to

the 'Real Prakriti', the other real 'Witnesses' remain in

Bondage.There is no 'Advaita being taught here at all. (While there is

no dispute among scholars of Indian Philosophy as to the veracity of

this possition, may I recommend Swami Hariharanands' "Yoga Philosophy

of Patanjali", as a work which will provide ample proof for these

claims.) "Yoga" for Patanjali may mean 'Union' with the Purusha, but

it definately does not mean 'Advaita'.

 

If you want to "throw away your books, and meditate" that is

certainly your perogative, But if you want to Know the Non-Dual Self

of Vedanta,I suggest you dont give up your study of the Upanishads,

for that is the only source of such Knowledge. (NOT NIRVIKALPA

SAMADHI!)

 

Hari Om

Atma Caitanya

 

advaitin, Brian Milnes <b.milnes@b...> wrote:

> Dear Atmachaitanya

>

> In your long and well written treatise, you have made, I believe,

some fundamental errors. Please listen to the wise words of Harsha,

for they are well founded in experience of the absolute.

>

> I have less, but still recognize that the ultimate guru resides

within. Resolutely adhering to the interpreted teachings of a great

sage has no innate value. Some of what you state is just plain wrong.

For example:

>

> > However the doctrine that the attainment of

> > Nirvikalpa Samadhi, or the 'restraint of the mental

> > modifications'( chita Vriti Nirodha), leads to the

> > 'Direct Knowledge' of the self is thoroughly examined

> > and refuted by Shankaras' direct disciple Sureswaracharya

> > in his Brhadaranyaka Vartica, as well as his

> > Sambandha Vartica.

>

> Patanjali:

> 2. Yoga comes from transcending the processes of individual

> consciousness,

> 3. then is one absorbed in the essence of the inner witness [the

Self].

> 4. Otherwise, (we identify) with the form of those processes.

>

> So he says that Yoga - Union (advaita) comes from transcending the

thought process, leaving pure awareness only. I can tell you from

personal experience that this is absolutely accurate and correct.

Either Sureswaracharya was misguided or (more likely) has been

misinterpreted.

>

> "Direct Knowledge" is a phrase that one might use to describe that

state of pure awareness - that which exists beyond thoughts. But of

course we are using the mundane to describe the subtle. And it is

almost impossible to justify or adequately describe to someone else.

(As someone else mentioned, one has to take such matters on good

faith, until one has had the same experience.)

>

> Samadhi is not a state of nothingness like deep sleep, it a state of

everythingness.

>

> Throw away the books, meditate and know thy Self.

>

> Love

>

> Brian

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Namaste AtmaChaitanyaji,

 

I have a basic question. Is'nt all this knowledge

from books(Whether they be Upanishads or Brahmasutras)

also in the plane of maya? After all it is you who

read them. It is you who understand them. All

understanding of books is dependent on your state of

mind.

Unless you know who you are in truth, all your

understanding is conditioned by the mind. Therefore no

amount of book reading can give you knowledge. All it

can give you is directions for sadhana.

 

 

Anand

 

> If you want to "throw away your books, and

> meditate" that is

> certainly your perogative, But if you want to Know

> the Non-Dual Self

> of Vedanta,I suggest you dont give up your study of

> the Upanishads,

> for that is the only source of such Knowledge. (NOT

> NIRVIKALPA

> SAMADHI!)

>

> Hari Om

> Atma Caitanya

>

 

 

 

 

Send your FREE holiday greetings online!

http://greetings.

[Guest guest]

Hari Om !!

 

Patanjali's conclusion is that the Maya will continue to play for

others, and not for the one who attained the Direct Knowledge. This

does not mean "Duality" or Otherwise. It does not say that the Gross

Physical world perceived by others will vanish for the realized man

as well as others.

 

Otherwise do you expect ALL to realize because one holy sage has

attained REALIZATION ? That is why it is called DIRECT KNOWLEDGE.

 

I guess, the words are being quoted out of context. If the

word "ADVAITA" is GROSS, including in our perception, why do we need

the word "ADVAITA" at all ?

 

Advaita is a philosophical nomenclature, to define that the

underlying SUBSTRATUM is ONE i.e in all forms and names. Know that to

be ANY one's own nature. Identify with it and be free from bondage.

So, who ever can do that will be released from bondage.

 

After all the Advaitic conclusion is that the universe is an illusory

superimposition on Brahman. All of us are deluded equally. Just as

the dreamer and all other actors of the dream see the same dream

world (ex: one moon, sun etc.), we all see this common illusory-

waking-world in our illusory-waking-state.

 

No body is intent on throwing away the books, but books are teaching

us that at the end one has to meditate and realize for his own self.

 

I wanted to ask you even before this e-mail, the follwing question:

 

What is your explanation on

 

a) the goal

b) the process and method to get there.

c) preparation

d)journey

e) pitfalls

f) milestones

g) what remains

 

Instead of theory or quotaions from scriptures, please give a

bulleted list. After all any prescrition for Life should be simple

and practicable for all.

 

Om Namo Narayanaya !!

 

Srikrishna

 

 

advaitin, "atmachaitanya108" <stadri@a...> wrote:

> Dear Brian,

> I can't understand why people who claim to be Advaitins (Non

> Dualist) have such a strong reluctance to acknowledge the

> indisputable fact that Patanjalis Yoga Philosopy is dualistic

through

> and through. Duality is True before the attainment of the 'Direct

> Knowledge' of the Self, and duality is True after the attainment of

> the 'Direct Knowlege of the Self. Patanjali held that the 'Inner

> Self'(THE WITNESS) was MANY IN NUMBER: You have your Witness, and I

> have my Witness, and when one 'Witness' gets freed from his bondage

to

> the 'Real Prakriti', the other real 'Witnesses' remain in

> Bondage.There is no 'Advaita being taught here at all. (While there

is

> no dispute among scholars of Indian Philosophy as to the veracity

of

> this possition, may I recommend Swami Hariharanands' "Yoga

Philosophy

> of Patanjali", as a work which will provide ample proof for these

> claims.) "Yoga" for Patanjali may mean 'Union' with the Purusha,

but

> it definately does not mean 'Advaita'.

>

> If you want to "throw away your books, and meditate" that is

> certainly your perogative, But if you want to Know the Non-Dual

Self

> of Vedanta,I suggest you dont give up your study of the Upanishads,

> for that is the only source of such Knowledge. (NOT NIRVIKALPA

> SAMADHI!)

>

> Hari Om

> Atma Caitanya

>

> advaitin, Brian Milnes <b.milnes@b...> wrote:

> > Dear Atmachaitanya

> >

> > In your long and well written treatise, you have made, I believe,

> some fundamental errors. Please listen to the wise words of Harsha,

> for they are well founded in experience of the absolute.

> >

> > I have less, but still recognize that the ultimate guru resides

> within. Resolutely adhering to the interpreted teachings of a great

> sage has no innate value. Some of what you state is just plain

wrong.

> For example:

> >

> > > However the doctrine that the attainment of

> > > Nirvikalpa Samadhi, or the 'restraint of the mental

> > > modifications'( chita Vriti Nirodha), leads to the

> > > 'Direct Knowledge' of the self is thoroughly examined

> > > and refuted by Shankaras' direct disciple Sureswaracharya

> > > in his Brhadaranyaka Vartica, as well as his

> > > Sambandha Vartica.

> >

> > Patanjali:

> > 2. Yoga comes from transcending the processes of individual

> > consciousness,

> > 3. then is one absorbed in the essence of the inner witness [the

> Self].

> > 4. Otherwise, (we identify) with the form of those processes.

> >

> > So he says that Yoga - Union (advaita) comes from transcending

the

> thought process, leaving pure awareness only. I can tell you from

> personal experience that this is absolutely accurate and correct.

> Either Sureswaracharya was misguided or (more likely) has been

> misinterpreted.

> >

> > "Direct Knowledge" is a phrase that one might use to describe

that

> state of pure awareness - that which exists beyond thoughts. But of

> course we are using the mundane to describe the subtle. And it is

> almost impossible to justify or adequately describe to someone

else.

> (As someone else mentioned, one has to take such matters on good

> faith, until one has had the same experience.)

> >

> > Samadhi is not a state of nothingness like deep sleep, it a state

of

> everythingness.

> >

> > Throw away the books, meditate and know thy Self.

> >

> > Love

> >

> > Brian

> >

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

Dear KK,

Good points raised.

-

"K Kathirasan NCS" <kkathir

<advaitin>

Thursday, December 27, 2001 1:48 AM

RE: Re: My thoughts on Samadhi & Advaita

> KK: May I know what is this limited self which completely drops? If you

are

> referring to the body-mind-sense complex, then I can agree with you sir.

Yes. That is what I meant.

>But

> what we say is that the Self is always revealing itself as

> Awareness/Consciousness in the 3 states of experience. Therefore, there

is

> no need for a Samadhi experience to reveal the Atma. Shastra pramana and

> shraddha are enough.

For one who is established in the Self all the time expereince is no more

necessary. But then even Shastra Pramana and Shradda are also not necessary.

But for the ignorant (sometimes quite intelligent!) humans who can only

intellectually state "I am Atma" repeating the Scriptural and teacher's

statements, experience is quite valuable.

> It sounds impossible for anyone to reside in the

> Nirvikalpa Samadhi all the time (if we consider it to be a mindless

state),

> because we can't account for his transactions with the world without a

mind.

Nirvikalpa state is not a trance state which immobilizes your body along

with your traditional mind. However, in the beginning it may turn out to be

a trance state. But it need not always be a trance state.

> KK: But it can be a possibility if we take that Nirvikalpa state as a

state

> where there are no erroneous notions about oneself, in other words the

> absence of identification with body-sense-mind complex. Then it will make

> alot of sense.

This is what I meant.

> KK: From what I learnt, the mahavakya 'Tat Tvam Asi' (not Samadhi) is

enough

> to liberate the Jiva provided he/she has the necessary qualifications such

> as Shama, Dama, mumukshutvam etc....

Absolutely. To know that point, a certain trigger may be needed and that can

be Nirvikalpa Samadhi experience. Just a book knowledge and a belief in it

may not be enough. It is the knowledge of and belief in "words" that have

created other religions, which are quite different from what Advaita is.

> KK: Sir, the above is very speculative and most of it all it mystifies

> Vedanta thereby making it non-communicable wisdom.

I f Vedanta is just a philospohy to write and lecture about, then you are

right. If it is the being and living there is no more mystery and it is

available to every one, not just a chosen and erudite few!

> KK: This will be my last post on this topic. Perhaps other members can

> contribute. I would like to thank everyone for their patience with my

> rattlings and apologies if it has taken too much of your time.

I feel the same. Thanks for your questioning. Hopefully others may be

patient enough to respond to your actual "original" question which started

me going!!

-- Vis

[Guest guest]

Hi!

The real questions are:

What are Information, Knowledge, Thoughts, Memory, and Experience?

And how are they interconnected?

Amy takers?

-- Vis

-

"oceanwavejoy" <colette

<advaitin>

Saturday, December 29, 2001 5:39 AM

Re: My thoughts on Samadhi & Advaita

 

> advaitin, "egodust" <egodust@d...> wrote:

> > hariH OM!

> > namaste.

> >

> > we tend to glorify and "exotify" this [state of] nirvikalpa

> samadhi.

> > it simply implies "experience void of thought."

>

> Is 'it' an experience Frank?

>

> Col

>

>

>

>

> Discussion of Shankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy of nonseparablity of

Atman and Brahman.

> Advaitin List Archives available at:

http://www.eScribe.com/culture/advaitin/

> To Post a message send an email to : advaitin

> Messages Archived at: advaitin/messages

>

>

>

> Your use of is subject to

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

greg goode wrote:

>

>[...] For many people, nirvikalpa samadhi, which is just one

of many different comings and goings, *implies* one's natural state

of Being. This samadhi and this implication are often (mis)taken for

that state of Being. I've known people depressed and saddened for

years, after attaining then losing nirvikalpa samadhi, which they had

been taught was IT.

>

 

hariH OM! gregji-

namaste.

 

yes, nirvikalpa samadhi carries as many misconceptions as the concept

of Self-realization itself!

 

it's important for us to also understand that prarabdha karma, which

is really [causally and manifestly] a mind-processing matter, has

nothing to do with the established buddhic connection to the

paramatman (being identical to brahman). this is something, in my

view, that's widely misunderstood. many vedantins, for example, look

to the behavior of who may be considered a jivanmuktha, and apply the

characteristics of sthithaprajna (state of perfected yet attributeless

Self, manifested in the jiva's persona).

 

using myself as an illustration (not that i think of myself as what

vedantins would refer to as a jnani; moreover i contend that defining

oneself as a jnani *or* ajnani is critically deluded and patently

false!), the body-mind mechanism of this jivatman has numerous flaws,

not the least of which led to experiencing a month's worth of

depression when my wife [with her mother] went to india during the

maha kumbhamela (early this year) and, not hearing from her for 11

days, thought the worst or that she didn't care enough to call.

however, as i surmised all along, she seems to have a more secure

since higher developed buddhic experience/insight into our love than i

evidently do, despite that i argue that she's not as sensitive to the

*expression* of our love.

 

nevertheless, throughout that period of confusion and delusionary

sense of abandonment i was feeling, deeper within me was the

undaunted/unphased bhavana (inner sensation-feeling) where burned the

steady flame of atmanishtha.

 

like the ocean, only the surface gets ruffled.

 

so-called vedantins or anyone with practical understanding of the

nondual perennial philosophy, would do well adopting this ocean

metaphor and never forget it [as representing] their totality, their

true nature: the holistic brahman in all Its Manifest and Unmanifest

worlds of Being, in addition to embracing the limited mayavic

specificity of the relative dynamics in any given now of the leela.

 

i contend further, this is what's happening with *everyone*, whether

they're "frontally, practically" aware of it or not. their true

nature is reflective of that ocean metaphor, regardless if they're

being even *violently* thwarted by avidya...whether through avarana

(veiling) and/or vikshepa (dualistic projecting).. doesn't matter

except *by appearance* in some much weaker Relative format where the

ego is temporally dreaming away...erstwhile the Self remains

ever-shining as the unwaivering depth of the human (or ANY entified

sentient Being) experience in/of *every* NOW.

 

the matter (of What IS) yet carries a masterful vibration of sheer

Mystery, the likes of which renders ANY description or even philosophy

attempting to apprehend its essence, empty and comedic!

 

and yet(!).....regardless of all the above, That which IS, is *never

not* in our every moment Being. no exceptions.

 

peace in OM,

frank

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "egodust" <egodust@d...> wrote:

> greg goode wrote:

> >

> >[...] For many people, nirvikalpa samadhi, which is just one

> of many different comings and goings, *implies* one's natural

state

> of Being. This samadhi and this implication are often (mis)taken

for

> that state of Being. I've known people depressed and saddened for

> years, after attaining then losing nirvikalpa samadhi, which they

had

> been taught was IT.

> >

>

> hariH OM! gregji-

> namaste.

>

> yes, nirvikalpa samadhi carries as many misconceptions as the

concept

> of Self-realization itself!

>

> it's important for us to also understand that prarabdha karma,

which

> is really [causally and manifestly] a mind-processing matter, has

> nothing to do with the established buddhic connection to the

> paramatman (being identical to brahman). this is something, in my

> view, that's widely misunderstood. many vedantins, for example,

look

> to the behavior of who may be considered a jivanmuktha, and apply

the

> characteristics of sthithaprajna (state of perfected yet

attributeless

> Self, manifested in the jiva's persona).

>

> using myself as an illustration (not that i think of myself as what

> vedantins would refer to as a jnani; moreover i contend that

defining

> oneself as a jnani *or* ajnani is critically deluded and patently

> false!), the body-mind mechanism of this jivatman has numerous

flaws,

> not the least of which led to experiencing a month's worth of

> depression when my wife [with her mother] went to india during the

> maha kumbhamela (early this year) and, not hearing from her for 11

> days, thought the worst or that she didn't care enough to call.

> however, as i surmised all along, she seems to have a more secure

> since higher developed buddhic experience/insight into our love

than i

> evidently do, despite that i argue that she's not as sensitive to

the

> *expression* of our love.

>

> nevertheless, throughout that period of confusion and delusionary

> sense of abandonment i was feeling, deeper within me was the

> undaunted/unphased bhavana (inner sensation-feeling) where burned

the

> steady flame of atmanishtha.

>

> like the ocean, only the surface gets ruffled.

>

> so-called vedantins or anyone with practical understanding of the

> nondual perennial philosophy, would do well adopting this ocean

> metaphor and never forget it [as representing] their totality,

their

> true nature: the holistic brahman in all Its Manifest and

Unmanifest

> worlds of Being, in addition to embracing the limited mayavic

> specificity of the relative dynamics in any given now of the leela.

>

> i contend further, this is what's happening with *everyone*,

whether

> they're "frontally, practically" aware of it or not. their true

> nature is reflective of that ocean metaphor, regardless if they're

> being even *violently* thwarted by avidya...whether through avarana

> (veiling) and/or vikshepa (dualistic projecting).. doesn't matter

> except *by appearance* in some much weaker Relative format where

the

> ego is temporally dreaming away...erstwhile the Self remains

> ever-shining as the unwaivering depth of the human (or ANY entified

> sentient Being) experience in/of *every* NOW.

>

> the matter (of What IS) yet carries a masterful vibration of sheer

> Mystery, the likes of which renders ANY description or even

philosophy

> attempting to apprehend its essence, empty and comedic!

>

> and yet(!).....regardless of all the above, That which IS, is

*never

> not* in our every moment Being. no exceptions.

>

> peace in OM,

> frank

 

That's beautiful Frank. Thanks for sharing. Much love to you & Erica.

 

Some things I want to say ... Enlightened people are still human.

In fact that's what I refer to as the beauty of vulnerability. It is

the relationship between emptiness & form, or spirit & matter (& soul

in between), which is the force of evolution experiencing Itself.

 

It is also the sacred interplay between masculine & feminine. Here in

this case you exposed your vulnerability & the beauty of relationship

it offers between the divine marriage you share with your beautiful

wife who has her own inner wisdom to reflect for your continued

evolution, eventhough inwardly you are awake. This is spoken of in

the alchemical scriptures as the inner marriage but as we know has an

outer show ... Stillness & movement coexist & can do so in harmony.

 

I love Jnaneshwar's poem Shiva & Shakti which expresses the loving

devotion between formless & form or absolute Self & all things ...

 

I honor the God & the Goddess,

The eternal parents of the universe.

 

The Lover, out of boundless love,

Takes the form of the Beloved.

What beauty!

Both are made of the same nectar

And share the same food.

 

Out of supreme love

They swallow up each other

But separate again

For the joy of being two.

 

They are not completely the same

But neither are they different.

No one can tell exactly what they are.

 

How intense is their longing

To be with each other.

This is their greatest bliss.

Never, not even in jest,

Do they allow their unity

To be disturbed.

 

They are so averse to separation

That even though they have become

This entire world,

Never for a moment do they let

A difference come between them

 

Even though they see

All that is animate & inanimate,

Arising from within themselves,

They never recognize a third.

 

They sit together in the same place,

Both wearing a garment of light.

>From the beginning of time

They have been together,

Reveling in their own Supreme Love.

 

They created a difference

To enjoy this world.

When that "difference"

Had one glimpse of their intimacy

It could not help but merge

Back into the bliss

Of their eternal union.

 

Without the God,

There is no Goddess,

And without the Goddess

There is no God.

 

How sweet is their love!

The entire universe is too small

To contain them,

Yet they live happily

In the tiniest particle.

 

The life of one

Is the life of the other,

And not even a blade of grass

Can grow without both of them.

 

Only these two live

In this house

Called the universe.

 

When either one is asleep

The other stays awake

And plays the part of both.

 

Should both of them awake,

The whole universe

Would vanish without a trace.

 

They become two

For the sake of divine play,

But in every moment

They seek to become one again.

 

Both of them see together,

Both of them are seen together.

They are happy only when together.

 

Shiva has become all forms:

Both dark & light,

Both male & female.

By the union of these two halves

The whole universe comes to be.

 

Two lutes make one note.

Two roses make one fragrance.

Two lamps make one light.

 

Two lips - one word.

Two eyes - one sight.

Shiva & Shakti - one universe.

 

Though appearing separate

They are forever joined,

Always eating from the same plate.

 

She is a chaste & devoted partner;

She cannot live without Her Lord.

And without Her,

The one who can do everything

Cannot even appear.

 

How can we distinguish

These two from each other?

He appears because of Her,

And she exists because of Him.

 

We cannot tell sugar

>From its sweetness

Nor camphor

>From its fragrance.

 

To capture light

We take hold of fire.

To capture the Supreme Shiva

We must take hold of Shakti.

 

Light illumines the Sun,

But the Sun itself

Creates that light.

The glorious Sun & its light

Are one & the same.

 

An object has a reflection:

When looking we see two images,

Yet there is only one thing.

Likewise, this world is a reflection

Of the Supreme Lord.

We may see two,

Yet only One exists.

 

Out of pure emptiness

She gives rise to the entire world.

Everything depends on Her.

Yet She exists only because

Of Her Lord.

 

Her form is the whole world,

It is the glory of God made manifest.

God Himself created Her form,

God Himself became that form.

 

Seeing Herself beautifully adorned,

She could not bear that Her Lord

Might have less then Herself.

And so she adorned Him

With every name & form in the universe.

 

Merged in unity

There was nothing to do.

So Shakti, the bringer of good fortune,

Created this world for the sake of divine play.

 

She reveals Her Lord's splendor

By melting Herself & becoming everything;

And He glorifies Her,

By hiding Himself completely.

 

Out of His great love to see Her

He becomes the Seer of the universe.

If he could not watch Her play,

He would have no reason to exist.

 

To meet her call

He takes on the form

Of the whole universe;

Without Her He remains naked.

 

He is so mysterious & subtle,

That while apparent

He cannot be seen.

It is by Her grace alone

That He comes into being.

 

She awakens Her Lord,

And serves Him a feast

The size of the universe.

With great delight

He swallows up every dish

And also the one who serves Him.

 

While He is sleeping,

She gives birth to all that exists

And all that does not exist.

While She is sleeping

He has no form at all.

 

Look!

He is hidden,

And cannot be found without Her.

For they are mirrors,

Each revealing the other.

 

Embracing Her,

Shiva enjoys His own bliss.

Though all the joy

Of the world belongs to Him,

There is no joy without Her.

 

She is His very form,

But Her radiance comes from Him.

Blending into one,

They enjoy the nectar of their own union.

 

Shiva & Shakti are one,

Like air & the wind,

Like gold & its luster.

 

Shiva & shakti cannot be separated.

They are like musk & its fragrance,

Like fire & its heat.

 

In the light of the Sun

There is no difference between day & night

In the Light of the Supreme Truth

There is no difference between Shiva & Shakti.

 

Shiva and Shakti envy the Primordial Sound "Om"

because they are seen as two

while the sound Om is always regarded as one.

 

Jnanadeva says,

"I honor the union of Shiva and Shakti,

who devour this world of name and form

like a sweet dish.

All that remains is the One."

 

Embracing each other

they merge into One,

As darkness merges with the light

At the breaking of dawn.

 

When we discover their Unity,

All words and all thoughts

dissolve into silence,

Just as when the Universal Deluge comes,

the waters of the ocean, and those of the Ganges,

will merge into one.

 

The air and the wind

will merge into the endless sky;

The sun and its light

will merge into the Universal Fire.

 

With a true vision of them,

the seer and the seen

merge into one.

Again I honor

the two who are one.

 

They are like an ocean of knowledge.

And only those who throw themselves in can drink

of their waters.

 

I appear separate from them

just so I can honor them.

But that separation is not real,

it is only in name.

 

My praise is like that of a gold ornament

honoring the gold from which it is made.

 

When the tongue is used to pronounce the word "tongue,"

Is there any difference between the word

and the object meant by it?

One is called "ocean,"

the other is called "Ganges,"

and though these are different names,

Their waters are still the same.

 

The Sun can be seen,

but so can the objects it illumines.

Does this mean there are two Suns?

If moonlight shines on the surface of the Moon,

Or if the light of a lamp reveals the lamp,

can we claim that there is another?

 

The syllable "Om" is made up of the sounds A, U, and M,

does that mean it is divided?

 

The letter "N" is made up of three lines,

does that mean it is more than one?

 

When the luster of a pearl

shines upon its surface,

The pearl's beauty is only enhanced.

 

If one's bounty is not lessened,

and only profit is obtained,

Why should the ocean not enjoy its waves,

or a flower its own fragrance?

 

So I enjoy the worship of Shiva and Shakti,

though I am never separate from them.

 

A reflected image disappears

when the mirror is removed,

Ripples merge back into the water

when the wind becomes still.

 

When sleep comes to an end,

a man returns to his senses.

Now my individuality has come to an end,

and I have returned to Shiva and Shakti.

 

Salt gives up its salty taste

to become one with the ocean;

I give up my individual self

to become Shiva and Shakti.

 

When the covering is removed,

the air inside a plantain tree

merges with the air outside.

And this is how I honor Shiva and Shakti-

by removing all separation and

becoming one with them.

 

by

Jnaneshwar

 

With Respect,

 

Colette

[Guest guest]

dear anand

namaskar

i feel u r v right

just reading does not give u knowledge ie gyan.

 

at best it can give u direction but if u do not follow

the direction mere reading can only add your talking

or writing ability and that's all

 

n k bali

 

 

--- Anand Natarajan <harihara.geo wrote: >

Namaste AtmaChaitanyaji,

>

> I have a basic question. Is'nt all this

> knowledge

> from books(Whether they be Upanishads or

> Brahmasutras)

> also in the plane of maya? After all it is you who

> read them. It is you who understand them. All

> understanding of books is dependent on your state of

> mind.

> Unless you know who you are in truth, all your

> understanding is conditioned by the mind. Therefore

> no

> amount of book reading can give you knowledge. All

> it

> can give you is directions for sadhana.

>

>

> Anand

>

>

> > If you want to "throw away your books, and

> > meditate" that is

> > certainly your perogative, But if you want to Know

> > the Non-Dual Self

> > of Vedanta,I suggest you dont give up your study

> of

> > the Upanishads,

> > for that is the only source of such Knowledge.

> (NOT

> > NIRVIKALPA

> > SAMADHI!)

> >

> > Hari Om

> > Atma Caitanya

> >

>

>

>

>

> Send your FREE holiday greetings online!

> http://greetings.

>

 

=====

 

with best wishes,

 

N.K.BALI

 

Visit my site on ' Bhagavad Gita ', a spiritual delight.You will love it.

http://in.geocities.com/gitabykrishna

 

 

 

______________________

Download Logos, Picture Messages & Ringtones for your mobile phone

Visit http://mobile..co.in

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "oceanwavejoy" <colette@b...> wrote:

> Some things I want to say ... Enlightened people are still human.

> In fact that's what I refer to as the beauty of vulnerability. It is

> the relationship between emptiness & form, or spirit & matter (&

soul

> in between), which is the force of evolution experiencing Itself.

>

> It is also the sacred interplay between masculine & feminine. Here

in

> this case you exposed your vulnerability & the beauty of

relationship

> it offers between the divine marriage you share with your beautiful

> wife who has her own inner wisdom to reflect for your continued

> evolution, eventhough inwardly you are awake. This is spoken of in

> the alchemical scriptures as the inner marriage but as we know has

an

> outer show ... Stillness & movement coexist & can do so in harmony.

>

> I love Jnaneshwar's poem Shiva & Shakti which expresses the loving

> devotion between formless & form or absolute Self & all things ...

 

dear mitri coletteji,

 

well said, and yes we're seeing the same *relative* interpretation of

brahman's leela (which latter cements the fundamental ideology of

advaita itself!)..........

 

we have to be mindful though that it's just that, an interpretation.

as humans we're supremely *incapable* of beholding the "thing itself"

in any form of ideology, regardless how rarefied. simply because its

primal condition is an inscrutable Mystery. (and we wouldn't want to

have it any other way! ..at least i know i sure as heck

wouldn't.......)

 

anyway, incredibly beautiful poem. his writing style is almost as

unique as the message itself. (well, errr, not even close, but you

know what i mean :-) much of that i'm sure is due to someone's less

than syntactical poetic ability....nevertheless it works somehow for

what winds up being an "instructional work," and masterpiece at that!

 

i was going to reply to your earlier post: noting re if the nirvikalpa

samadhi [associated with Self-realization] is experiential. from what

i've seen, the instances where some gurus or rishis nix the idea that

"experience" can be had in that state, is only geared to dismantle the

sadhak's (aspirant's) intellectual grip on that or any other concept,

since these are the main things keeping the jiva confused and

bewildered in the mithya of samsara (the false, limited counterpart of

maya).

 

fact is however, the Self *is* experiencing Itself. If we analyze the

basis of Self-realization, being [the essence of] sat-chit-ananda, the

"chit" (pure consciousness) implies the experience of "ananda"

(bliss). the idea of "no experiencer" has to do with the nonexistence

of a separate ego, not the Self Itself! the Self is the Singular

Witness to the Whole 'Shebang' of the multitudes--and i mean

*multitudes*--of entified Beings in the universe of leela. (jeez, if

we can just look up in the clear night sky and use let's say a little

more imagination than usual re what's REALLY goin on out there...

whereupon, if successful, we'd be cranked-up enough by that single

experience alone to drop Reason's ancient stronghold on us like a

sizzling hot potatoe! hahaha!)

 

peace in OM,

frank

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "egodust" <egodust@d...> wrote:

> advaitin, "oceanwavejoy" <colette@b...> wrote:

> > Some things I want to say ... Enlightened people are still human.

> > In fact that's what I refer to as the beauty of vulnerability. It

is

> > the relationship between emptiness & form, or spirit & matter (&

> soul

> > in between), which is the force of evolution experiencing Itself.

> >

> > It is also the sacred interplay between masculine & feminine.

Here

> in

> > this case you exposed your vulnerability & the beauty of

> relationship

> > it offers between the divine marriage you share with your

beautiful

> > wife who has her own inner wisdom to reflect for your continued

> > evolution, eventhough inwardly you are awake. This is spoken of

in

> > the alchemical scriptures as the inner marriage but as we know

has

> an

> > outer show ... Stillness & movement coexist & can do so in

harmony.

> >

> > I love Jnaneshwar's poem Shiva & Shakti which expresses the

loving

> > devotion between formless & form or absolute Self & all things ...

>

> dear mitri coletteji,

>

> well said, and yes we're seeing the same *relative* interpretation

of

> brahman's leela (which latter cements the fundamental ideology of

> advaita itself!)..........

>

> we have to be mindful though that it's just that, an

interpretation.

> as humans we're supremely *incapable* of beholding the "thing

itself"

> in any form of ideology, regardless how rarefied. simply because

its

> primal condition is an inscrutable Mystery. (and we wouldn't want

to

> have it any other way! ..at least i know i sure as heck

> wouldn't.......)

>

> anyway, incredibly beautiful poem. his writing style is almost as

> unique as the message itself. (well, errr, not even close, but you

> know what i mean :-) much of that i'm sure is due to someone's

less

> than syntactical poetic ability....nevertheless it works somehow

for

> what winds up being an "instructional work," and masterpiece at

that!

>

> i was going to reply to your earlier post: noting re if the

nirvikalpa

> samadhi [associated with Self-realization] is experiential. from

what

> i've seen, the instances where some gurus or rishis nix the idea

that

> "experience" can be had in that state, is only geared to dismantle

the

> sadhak's (aspirant's) intellectual grip on that or any other

concept,

> since these are the main things keeping the jiva confused and

> bewildered in the mithya of samsara (the false, limited counterpart

of

> maya).

>

> fact is however, the Self *is* experiencing Itself. If we analyze

the

> basis of Self-realization, being [the essence of] sat-chit-ananda,

the

> "chit" (pure consciousness) implies the experience of "ananda"

> (bliss). the idea of "no experiencer" has to do with the

nonexistence

> of a separate ego, not the Self Itself! the Self is the Singular

> Witness to the Whole 'Shebang' of the multitudes--and i mean

> *multitudes*--of entified Beings in the universe of leela. (jeez,

if

> we can just look up in the clear night sky and use let's say a

little

> more imagination than usual re what's REALLY goin on out there...

> whereupon, if successful, we'd be cranked-up enough by that single

> experience alone to drop Reason's ancient stronghold on us like a

> sizzling hot potatoe! hahaha!)

>

> peace in OM,

> frank

 

Well for sure it sure is humbling Frank to be reminded that any use

of words and conceptual meaning is just the lila. But what about the

other reminder that even all, is just That so is no need to belittle

but honour even in its differentiation .. For sure we need to not let

attachment to forms overshadow That.

 

imo,

 

Colette

Happy New Year 2002

[Guest guest]

Dearest Seekers,

I wish you all a 'Happy New Year 2002'.

 

We had seen very interesting viewpoints towards 'Study of Scriptures'

and 'Meditation'.

 

It is my understanding that both of them are helpers on the way and

we have in Gita12:12 something that is more fundamental than the

above two, which I quote here:

 

Gita 12:12 -

'Knowledge' is indeed better than 'practice' ; 'meditation' is better

than 'knowledge' ; 'renunciation of the fruits-of-actions' is better

than 'meditation' ; peace immediately follows 'renunciation. '.

 

Please feel free to confirm or deny the above.

 

Kind Regards,

Raghava