Is there 'light' in Enlightenment? (Sept. 03 discussion topic)

[Guest guest]

Namaste All.

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

An advaitin interminably confronts scriputural statements and

testimony by preceptors/realized souls about there being `light' in

Enlightenment. Please note that by Enlightenment I mean self-

realization, which is the avowed goal of all aspiring advaitins.

Some gurus use the word effulgence and others claim of experiences in

which brilliant flashes consumed their individual being and sense of

duality. I wouldn't like to quote any one here as such statements are

scattered everywhere around for us to pick at will. In fact, a

brilliant post recently by our Pieter-ji touches on this topic.

 

I must confess that I have myself used the words "shine", "light up"

etc. in the various discussions on this forum a la Sankara (jAnAmIti

tamEvabhantam in DakshinAmUrthi stOtra) and our temple prayer ("Na

tatra sUryo bhAti….TamEva bhAntam….".). Besides, recently, I also

quoted part of Verse 36 from Soundarya Lahari where Sankara

beautifully describes Enlightenment as "bhAlOkabhuvanam", an

inadequate translation for which would be, if you permit me that

liberty, "self-shining world beyond ordinary perception".

 

We also notice that there are other down-to-earth sages who have

scrupulously avoided the usage of such words (e.g. : Bhagwan Ramana

as far as I know) although he spoke volumes and volumes about the

ultimate JnAna. What happened to the Buddha under the tree,

translated as Enlightenment in English, does not speak of any light

at all. In fact, it concerns with transcending the shackles of

samsAra.

 

The mention of light, flashes, brilliance of millions of suns all

shining together etc., perhaps metaphorically used by sages and in

scriptural texts including the many prayers that we usually chant

[like kOtisUrya samaprabha for the dear Devi and Kundalini rising

through the shad-chakrAs and exploding in all Her brilliance on the

sahasrAra (thaTillatAsamaruchi shadchakrOpari samstitA in LalitA

Sahasra nAmAvali – like lightning pervading the six charkas) etc.]

have made millions of seekers across the globe to sit ceaselessly

looking at their nose-tips or concentrating between the eyebrows.

And, if they ever saw lights or had a headache, as one would normally

in such earnest attempts, there have been teachers too who have very

unsympathetically asked them to check their eyesight.

 

As an aspirant, I too have experienced such glows, most unwittingly

so to say. In fact, often during my prayers and before dozing off, I

do often feel like a glowing Rontgen tube or glow-worm or a an

effulgent embryo. On all such occasions, I labour to remind myself

of a sensible preceptor's advice: "Don't concern yourself with the

light. Enquire after the seer of the light.".

 

So the question: "Is there light in Enlightenment?"

 

DISCUSSION:

 

I would like to be down-to-earth and look at the question from an

understanding of the term Sat-Chit-Ananda.

 

Sat, loosely translated into English as Existence, is Being

(deliberately capitalized to differentiate from the pedestrian

meaning of the term) unconditioned by time (space as well

therefore). As the intellect needs an academic interpretation, we

are forced to express and understand It as an awareness that I am

always everywhere without birth or death. Space and time still

afflict this understanding.

 

Chit, again loosely translated as Knowledge, is a fusion of knower,

knowing and known. As such, Knowledge cannot be the usual knowing

through the mind-intellect-sense-organs combination. The intellect

again has to necessarily understand it as an all-knowing, a lighting

up of everything or the light that lights up everything.

 

Ananda, known as fullness, is that I am everything, limitless without

any beyonds and that everything, including a sense of duality (the

beginning-less error – perhaps the Christian's original sin that

threw Adam and Eve into samsAra if their story is looked at from the

advaitin's point of view?) abides in me without apparent divisions.

But, as long as the intellect operates, duality will be apparent

despite the logical, academic deduction that I am everything.

However, when the intellect is transcended, (I must confess I

haven't.), there is no compartmentalization possible or even

warranted. There can logically be only One without a second without

any wants. This awareness of one's fullness, being without wants,

gives rise to a sense of contentment and that is why probably

fullness is loosely translated as bliss.

 

On final analysis, it will be found that all three (Sat, Chit and

Ananda) are just synonyms pointing at the same Truth.

 

When this intellectual appreciation of Sat–Chit-Ananda, as explained

above, grows on the advaitin and reaches fruition, of course through

constant contemplation and sAdhana, the grip of time and space,

duality and other limitations slowly slackens and one `realizes' that

one oneself is Sat-Chit-Ananda or, in other words, becomes verily Sat-

Chit-Ananda. One has to intellectually assume that the mind and

intellect then become totally defunct. There in fact is no then or

now then. The proof for that is not the ultimate result, because

that cannot be a result in the normal sense, but the aspirant's

intuitive understanding of his/her progress, the scriptures and the

words of the teacher.

 

In my present stage, I can only intuit the Ultimate and that

intuition again has the sad tinge of a visualization. If this `being

One without a second' is self-realization, then where is the glow or

light that most seekers are ever after?

 

Also, looking at it logically, the mind, intellect and sense organs

are a result of our sense of separation from surrounding objects. It

can be vice versa too. The two sides are a mutual inevitability. We

cannot say which came first. It is like asking the question whether

the egg or the hen was the first to come. As long as the world of

objects are seen as separate from ourselves and that idea is

reinforced day in an day out through our various dealings, the primal

error (sense of separation) continues causing misery and fright.

However, when the error is logically seen through, contemplated upon

and acknowledged as an error through sAdhana, we become verily the

world and the aspirant `knows' he is vyotmavat vyAptadeha (embodiment

like all-pervading space) like Dakshinamurthy. This `knowing' does

not happen through mind and intellect. It is a natural growth on

oneself whereby the growth consumes the error and the individual

self. Someone as free as space naturally won't need mind, intellect

or sense organs. Such emcumbrances are non-existent in the freedom

that he is because their origin – the sense of separation – has

completely and irreversibly vanished.

 

If one likes to name this `knowing' as `light' (the light of jnAna)

or as Enlightenment, then there can't be any objection at all. That

is a linguistic convenience demanded again by the mind and

intellect. But, the main point is that such a christening should not

lead aspirants astray. That exactly is the purpose of this

discussion.

 

Self-realization, to put it metaphorically, (and that is the only

thing I can possibly do) is like an eventless, silent village sunset

(disregard the glow of the setting sun, please) or the cherubic smile

that Bhagwan Ramana wore throughout his life. These are only

reflections that one who operates with mind and intellect has at his

disposal to compare with. There are no flashes of lighting there, not

to speak of explosions.

 

POSSIBILITIES:

 

In a lighted room, the light shines the objects in there. When the

light goes off, the objects are not seen but darkness is seen. So,

they ask the very intelligent question: "What lights up the

darkness?". My daughter confronts me with her logical answer: "The

remembrance of the previous light and its current absence". Then,

she has a question for me up her sleeves: "Can't there be worlds of

total darkness?". That is a big possibility and, if there are, the

beings right there would not need any eyes. (I am not talking about

our dreaded unicellular microorganisms but of thinking beings

as `developed' as we are.). If this is applied to the rest of the

external stimuli like sound, taste, touch etc. that we are familiar

with, there could be worlds whose beings would not need ears, tongue,

skin etc. They may have entirely different sense organs to deal with

the stimuli available to them. We would not know what such stimuli

are! Besides, we will never come to know about their existence! Will

their realized teachers then speak of light, effulgence etc.? Yet,

they too might have pondered over the Truth and become advaitins and

some of their teachers might talk about a certain principal stimulus

available to them as consuming their being in self-realization!

[They might as well have an Einstein chuckling: "The speed of

darkness is a natural constant. It is 186,000 miles/second"!]

 

The question then pops up: Do external stimuli cause the creation of

sense organs or vice versa? The answer is in the Upanishads. It is

Consciousness first and last. The sense organs and stimuli, of which

we are blessed with only a limited number of five, are just

incidental. There could be many more – who knows? No wonder then

that the Devi (Consciousness) is referred to as anekakOti brahmANda

janani (the Mother of many million universes)!

 

Light, effulgence, flashes, brilliance thus relate to the main

stimulus with which we deal in our reality and they are, therefore,

too mundane to contaminate our understanding of self-realization. Can

we afford to be so chauvinistically mundane in our understanding of

Truth? Self-realization undeniably has a universality that

transcends galaxies, black-holes and even anti-universes. It cannot

remain just limited to a bunch of faiths unceasingly warring with one

another.

 

This argument is not exclusively limited to light alone. Other

stimuli like sound and tactility, also *experienced* in the path

towards self-realization, are included, which would mean that other

beings subject to a different set of stimuli might have a different

substitute for our nAdabrahma or praNava! Our enhanced tactility in

Kundalini experiences might find an entirely different expression in

them!

 

Isn't it therefore sensible to be content in the silent village

sunset and enjoy the smile of Bhagwan Ramana? Do we have to sit,

strain our eyes and await the Lightning to strike us down?

 

QUESTIONS:

 

1. Is Enlightenment, therefore, a massive light of bliss consuming

the aspirant's individual identity and makes him one with everything?

 

2. Or, is it transcendence to absolute nothingness untinged by

external stimuli quite apart from and beyond the

relative `nothingnesses' that we encounter and experience in ordinary

life?

 

3. Or, are the references to light purely metaphorical like when we

say: "The physicist shed light on the secrets of physics even when

the classroom was plunged in total darkness."?

 

4. Or, is Enlightenment just ordinary normality in which the

realized experiences the world *without any sense of separation*

and, therefore, is `submerged' in an ocean of fullness and

contentment where everything is in love with everything?

 

5. Or, is it a combination of all or some of the above?

 

I would personally to a combination without, of course, any

place for external stimuli and yet not christen It `absolute

nothingness' because It is verily the source of everything.

Nevertheless, (4) above is the one I prefer most. Isn't that the one

described in our Master's JivanmuktAnanda Lahari at this link:

http://www.kamakoti.org/shlokas/kshlok23.htm ?

 

 

DEBATE PARAMETERS:

 

Dear Members, the ball is in your court. I don't deny the fact that

spiritual `experiences' are a real bonus en route self-realization,

as I myself do enjoy them very much. But, such experiences are just

roadside attractions that should not deter us from what we are really

after. This, therefore, is only loud thinking to sift fancy away

from facts. All are welcome to present their points of view.

 

In order to ensure that our discussion is systematic, I would

recommend that your responses embrace the following parameters:

 

(a) Your free-lance refutations of my point of view along with the

logic therefor.

(b) Your own efforts and experiences towards self-realization and if

you have any reasons to think that my point of view is either wrong

or right (I am learning and, therefore, subject to correction.)

(c ) Scriptural quotes, with your interpretation, that refute or

support my point of view

(d) Teachings and reported experiences of personages whom you

consider to be realized souls (They can be anybody. The choice is

yours. No bars. Don't worry about Sarlo's guru ratings.)

(e) Any other logical parameter that you can think of. However,

please detail it as a foreword to your post.

(f) If you are quoting scriptural texts, please provide an authentic

translation with the name of the author in addition to your own

understanding if that differs from the former.

(g) Above all, in order to save disk-space, please quote only the

absolutely needed parts of my post. You will agree that opinions

expressed through the entire length of an already long post makes

cumbersome reading and assimilation. I would, therefore, recommend

that your replies are first typed and edited in an available software

format before pasting them on to the Advaitin message board.

(h) Please post your responses by clicking the 'reply' tab on the

last link in order to ensure thread continuity and proper caption

repetition.

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "Madathil Rajendran Nair"

<madathilnair> wrote:

> Namaste All.

>

>>

> QUESTIONS:

> 3. Or, are the references to light purely metaphorical like when

we

> say: "The physicist shed light on the secrets of physics even when

> the classroom was plunged in total darkness."?

>

>

> Madathil Nair

 

Namaste, Nairji. What a wonderful Analysis and Introduction. On a

quick reading, I find I totally agree with most of what you said and

particularly with No.3 above. Yes, 'Light' is a metaphorical word.

Regarding the other points you have raised I have to carefully think

it out and come back to you. But I hasten to congratulate you on a

fantastic beginning for the September discussion!

 

PraNAmsa to all advaitins

profvk

[Guest guest]

Namaste, Sri Nairji,

 

A very well written introduction to “Is there 'light' in Enlightenment?” and my

congratulations for introducing the subject so well.

 

My understanding (may I say so) of the result of self-knowledge is CONTENTMENT

and ACCEPTANCE (of “Ahambhava” which is included in “Idam” i.e. other than the

Self), which in turn results in Peace, which is what we all seek. Bliss is

nothing but this Peace the Ego enjoys on getting enlightened. In Malayalam the

great devotee of Lord Krishna, Poonthanam wrote

 

“MATHI UNDENKIL OKKEY MATHI”. You know the first “Mathi” means wisdom and the

second “Mathi” means enough. The meaning is, if you have that wisdom everything

is enough for you, i.e. you have no complaint about anything. This wisdom

results in seeing everything as just a Sakshi i.e. witness. This wisdom “takes

place” in one from Self Knowledge. Seeing of any light, hearing of any sound,

having any special experience (who experiences what), etc. are all, I think,

just hallucinations.

 

Swami Chnamayanandaji used to say “the light you see is nothing but the traffic

light which you saw while coming to the ashram for meditation”.

 

I have come across many people who very vehemently said many times that while in

deep meditations they had visions, which they could not explain.

 

Seeing any visions etc. during meditation does not help the Ego, because when

the Ego comes out of the meditation, it will again run after things, which

ultimately bring only agitation to the mind and unhappiness. With the

self-knowledge, the Ego gets educated i.e. enlightened.

 

Hari Om

 

R.S.Mani

 

 

Madathil Rajendran Nair <madathilnair wrote:Namaste All.

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

An advaitin interminably confronts scriputural statements and

testimony by preceptors/realized souls about there being `light' in

Enlightenment. Please note that by Enlightenment I mean self-

realization, which is the avowed goal of all aspiring advaitins.

Some gurus use the word effulgence and others claim of experiences in

which brilliant flashes consumed their individual being and sense of

duality. I wouldn't like to quote any one here as such statements are

scattered everywhere around for us to pick at will. In fact, a

brilliant post recently by our Pieter-ji touches on this topic.

 

I must confess that I have myself used the words "shine", "light up"

etc. in the various discussions on this forum a la Sankara (jAnAmIti

tamEvabhantam in DakshinAmUrthi stOtra) and our temple prayer ("Na

tatra sUryo bhAti….TamEva bhAntam….".). Besides, recently, I also

quoted part of Verse 36 from Soundarya Lahari where Sankara

beautifully describes Enlightenment as "bhAlOkabhuvanam", an

inadequate translation for which would be, if you permit me that

liberty, "self-shining world beyond ordinary perception".

 

We also notice that there are other down-to-earth sages who have

scrupulously avoided the usage of such words (e.g. : Bhagwan Ramana

as far as I know) although he spoke volumes and volumes about the

ultimate JnAna. What happened to the Buddha under the tree,

translated as Enlightenment in English, does not speak of any light

at all. In fact, it concerns with transcending the shackles of

samsAra.

 

The mention of light, flashes, brilliance of millions of suns all

shining together etc., perhaps metaphorically used by sages and in

scriptural texts including the many prayers that we usually chant

[like kOtisUrya samaprabha for the dear Devi and Kundalini rising

through the shad-chakrAs and exploding in all Her brilliance on the

sahasrAra (thaTillatAsamaruchi shadchakrOpari samstitA in LalitA

Sahasra nAmAvali – like lightning pervading the six charkas) etc.]

have made millions of seekers across the globe to sit ceaselessly

looking at their nose-tips or concentrating between the eyebrows.

And, if they ever saw lights or had a headache, as one would normally

in such earnest attempts, there have been teachers too who have very

unsympathetically asked them to check their eyesight.

 

As an aspirant, I too have experienced such glows, most unwittingly

so to say. In fact, often during my prayers and before dozing off, I

do often feel like a glowing Rontgen tube or glow-worm or a an

effulgent embryo. On all such occasions, I labour to remind myself

of a sensible preceptor's advice: "Don't concern yourself with the

light. Enquire after the seer of the light.".

 

So the question: "Is there light in Enlightenment?"

 

DISCUSSION:

 

I would like to be down-to-earth and look at the question from an

understanding of the term Sat-Chit-Ananda.

 

Sat, loosely translated into English as Existence, is Being

(deliberately capitalized to differentiate from the pedestrian

meaning of the term) unconditioned by time (space as well

therefore). As the intellect needs an academic interpretation, we

are forced to express and understand It as an awareness that I am

always everywhere without birth or death. Space and time still

afflict this understanding.

 

Chit, again loosely translated as Knowledge, is a fusion of knower,

knowing and known. As such, Knowledge cannot be the usual knowing

through the mind-intellect-sense-organs combination. The intellect

again has to necessarily understand it as an all-knowing, a lighting

up of everything or the light that lights up everything.

 

Ananda, known as fullness, is that I am everything, limitless without

any beyonds and that everything, including a sense of duality (the

beginning-less error – perhaps the Christian's original sin that

threw Adam and Eve into samsAra if their story is looked at from the

advaitin's point of view?) abides in me without apparent divisions.

But, as long as the intellect operates, duality will be apparent

despite the logical, academic deduction that I am everything.

However, when the intellect is transcended, (I must confess I

haven't.), there is no compartmentalization possible or even

warranted. There can logically be only One without a second without

any wants. This awareness of one's fullness, being without wants,

gives rise to a sense of contentment and that is why probably

fullness is loosely translated as bliss.

 

On final analysis, it will be found that all three (Sat, Chit and

Ananda) are just synonyms pointing at the same Truth.

 

When this intellectual appreciation of Sat–Chit-Ananda, as explained

above, grows on the advaitin and reaches fruition, of course through

constant contemplation and sAdhana, the grip of time and space,

duality and other limitations slowly slackens and one `realizes' that

one oneself is Sat-Chit-Ananda or, in other words, becomes verily Sat-

Chit-Ananda. One has to intellectually assume that the mind and

intellect then become totally defunct. There in fact is no then or

now then. The proof for that is not the ultimate result, because

that cannot be a result in the normal sense, but the aspirant's

intuitive understanding of his/her progress, the scriptures and the

words of the teacher.

 

In my present stage, I can only intuit the Ultimate and that

intuition again has the sad tinge of a visualization. If this `being

One without a second' is self-realization, then where is the glow or

light that most seekers are ever after?

 

Also, looking at it logically, the mind, intellect and sense organs

are a result of our sense of separation from surrounding objects. It

can be vice versa too. The two sides are a mutual inevitability. We

cannot say which came first. It is like asking the question whether

the egg or the hen was the first to come. As long as the world of

objects are seen as separate from ourselves and that idea is

reinforced day in an day out through our various dealings, the primal

error (sense of separation) continues causing misery and fright.

However, when the error is logically seen through, contemplated upon

and acknowledged as an error through sAdhana, we become verily the

world and the aspirant `knows' he is vyotmavat vyAptadeha (embodiment

like all-pervading space) like Dakshinamurthy. This `knowing' does

not happen through mind and intellect. It is a natural growth on

oneself whereby the growth consumes the error and the individual

self. Someone as free as space naturally won't need mind, intellect

or sense organs. Such emcumbrances are non-existent in the freedom

that he is because their origin – the sense of separation – has

completely and irreversibly vanished.

 

If one likes to name this `knowing' as `light' (the light of jnAna)

or as Enlightenment, then there can't be any objection at all. That

is a linguistic convenience demanded again by the mind and

intellect. But, the main point is that such a christening should not

lead aspirants astray. That exactly is the purpose of this

discussion.

 

Self-realization, to put it metaphorically, (and that is the only

thing I can possibly do) is like an eventless, silent village sunset

(disregard the glow of the setting sun, please) or the cherubic smile

that Bhagwan Ramana wore throughout his life. These are only

reflections that one who operates with mind and intellect has at his

disposal to compare with. There are no flashes of lighting there, not

to speak of explosions.

 

POSSIBILITIES:

 

In a lighted room, the light shines the objects in there. When the

light goes off, the objects are not seen but darkness is seen. So,

they ask the very intelligent question: "What lights up the

darkness?". My daughter confronts me with her logical answer: "The

remembrance of the previous light and its current absence". Then,

she has a question for me up her sleeves: "Can't there be worlds of

total darkness?". That is a big possibility and, if there are, the

beings right there would not need any eyes. (I am not talking about

our dreaded unicellular microorganisms but of thinking beings

as `developed' as we are.). If this is applied to the rest of the

external stimuli like sound, taste, touch etc. that we are familiar

with, there could be worlds whose beings would not need ears, tongue,

skin etc. They may have entirely different sense organs to deal with

the stimuli available to them. We would not know what such stimuli

are! Besides, we will never come to know about their existence! Will

their realized teachers then speak of light, effulgence etc.? Yet,

they too might have pondered over the Truth and become advaitins and

some of their teachers might talk about a certain principal stimulus

available to them as consuming their being in self-realization!

[They might as well have an Einstein chuckling: "The speed of

darkness is a natural constant. It is 186,000 miles/second"!]

 

The question then pops up: Do external stimuli cause the creation of

sense organs or vice versa? The answer is in the Upanishads. It is

Consciousness first and last. The sense organs and stimuli, of which

we are blessed with only a limited number of five, are just

incidental. There could be many more – who knows? No wonder then

that the Devi (Consciousness) is referred to as anekakOti brahmANda

janani (the Mother of many million universes)!

 

Light, effulgence, flashes, brilliance thus relate to the main

stimulus with which we deal in our reality and they are, therefore,

too mundane to contaminate our understanding of self-realization. Can

we afford to be so chauvinistically mundane in our understanding of

Truth? Self-realization undeniably has a universality that

transcends galaxies, black-holes and even anti-universes. It cannot

remain just limited to a bunch of faiths unceasingly warring with one

another.

 

This argument is not exclusively limited to light alone. Other

stimuli like sound and tactility, also *experienced* in the path

towards self-realization, are included, which would mean that other

beings subject to a different set of stimuli might have a different

substitute for our nAdabrahma or praNava! Our enhanced tactility in

Kundalini experiences might find an entirely different expression in

them!

 

Isn't it therefore sensible to be content in the silent village

sunset and enjoy the smile of Bhagwan Ramana? Do we have to sit,

strain our eyes and await the Lightning to strike us down?

 

QUESTIONS:

 

1. Is Enlightenment, therefore, a massive light of bliss consuming

the aspirant's individual identity and makes him one with everything?

 

2. Or, is it transcendence to absolute nothingness untinged by

external stimuli quite apart from and beyond the

relative `nothingnesses' that we encounter and experience in ordinary

life?

 

3. Or, are the references to light purely metaphorical like when we

say: "The physicist shed light on the secrets of physics even when

the classroom was plunged in total darkness."?

 

4. Or, is Enlightenment just ordinary normality in which the

realized experiences the world *without any sense of separation*

and, therefore, is `submerged' in an ocean of fullness and

contentment where everything is in love with everything?

 

5. Or, is it a combination of all or some of the above?

 

I would personally to a combination without, of course, any

place for external stimuli and yet not christen It `absolute

nothingness' because It is verily the source of everything.

Nevertheless, (4) above is the one I prefer most. Isn't that the one

described in our Master's JivanmuktAnanda Lahari at this link:

http://www.kamakoti.org/shlokas/kshlok23.htm ?

 

 

DEBATE PARAMETERS:

 

Dear Members, the ball is in your court. I don't deny the fact that

spiritual `experiences' are a real bonus en route self-realization,

as I myself do enjoy them very much. But, such experiences are just

roadside attractions that should not deter us from what we are really

after. This, therefore, is only loud thinking to sift fancy away

from facts. All are welcome to present their points of view.

 

In order to ensure that our discussion is systematic, I would

recommend that your responses embrace the following parameters:

 

(a) Your free-lance refutations of my point of view along with the

logic therefor.

(b) Your own efforts and experiences towards self-realization and if

you have any reasons to think that my point of view is either wrong

or right (I am learning and, therefore, subject to correction.)

(c ) Scriptural quotes, with your interpretation, that refute or

support my point of view

(d) Teachings and reported experiences of personages whom you

consider to be realized souls (They can be anybody. The choice is

yours. No bars. Don't worry about Sarlo's guru ratings.)

(e) Any other logical parameter that you can think of. However,

please detail it as a foreword to your post.

(f) If you are quoting scriptural texts, please provide an authentic

translation with the name of the author in addition to your own

understanding if that differs from the former.

(g) Above all, in order to save disk-space, please quote only the

absolutely needed parts of my post. You will agree that opinions

expressed through the entire length of an already long post makes

cumbersome reading and assimilation. I would, therefore, recommend

that your replies are first typed and edited in an available software

format before pasting them on to the Advaitin message board.

(h) Please post your responses by clicking the 'reply' tab on the

last link in order to ensure thread continuity and proper caption

repetition.

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

 

 

 

Sponsor

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

dear sir,

 

yes there is light in enlightenment. but how many try to realise

this. they are still in darkness ie samsara.

 

THE CLOUDS WHICH ARE PRODUCED BY THE HEAT OF THE SUN'S RAYS APPEAR IN

THE SKY FOR A WHILE, HIDE THE SUN AND DISAPPEAR. ONE WHO SEES THE

CLOUDS AS ILLUMINATED ONLY BY THE LIGHT OF THE SUN, IS SURE OF THE

PRESENCE OF THE SUN. Similarly, when one knows that the entire world

is a mere reflection which shines by the light of the pure

Conciousness and hence the appearance of the phenomena has only the

eternal and distinction-less Plenary Reality as its substrate and

when Knowledge becomes a conviction of conciousness, he is said to

have the vision of Siva (Brahman). Such knowers of Truth affirm that

the Effulgent Brahman, the causeless Cause is the only Reality, that

all the illusory appearances which are projected from It, and their

veiling It, constitute false knowledge or ignorance and that such

appearances are also illuminated by that Pure Conciousness only. To

be deluded by the shadows that are cast by the light of Reality, to

consider such unreal manifestations alone as real and true and to

cling to those illusory phenomena is Ignorance. When in the heart of

the Jiva, who has during all his births till now mistaken the unreal

for the real, the light of Atman is seen, he attains a certitude in

the depths of his conciousness that all external appearances are

illusory and realises Atman alone as the Sole Reality and is steeped

in its Bliss. This is called Iswara Darshan or the vision of the Lord

or Brahman. On seeing the light of True Knowledge, the illusion of

Maya is destroyed and he stays as his own Self, the Atman and an

embodiment of ineffable Love. This Love is God. For attaining this

state, the Sad guru's instruction, initiation into the Truth and

Grace are essential.

 

pranams

 

cdr bvn

[Guest guest]

Hi Sri Nair,

 

I must confess that I always thought that the use of the word 'light' or

similar was entirely metaphorical, as when we draw a light bulb above

someone's head to symbolise the dawning of understanding. As you say, and as

I remember being told that Shri Shantanand Saraswati, the onetime

Shankaracharya, used to say: if we see lights during meditation or other

sAdhana, we should go to the opticians. I rather think that when the idea of

'light' is used in connection with Sages, it is meant to refer to that

'aura' of awareness that seems to us to surround them, but not in any

literal sense.

 

You say that Ramana did not refer to such experiences and I think you are

probably right. What he did stress is that 'it was more important to be

aware of the experiencer than to indulge in or analyse the experience' ('Be

As You Are', David Godman, Arkana P. 170). It is the same with siddhis. He

was very derogatory of these. I rather like his statement that: 'If with

limited perceptions one is miserable, with extended perceptions the misery

must increase proportionately' (op cit P. 169).

 

But then you do actually concede all of this really, so on to your

sat-chit-ananda analysis. Just a pedantic observation to begin with: one

cannot 'become verily Sat-Chit-Ananda' since one already is it (whether one

realises it or not!).

 

You say "If this 'being One without a second' is self-realization, then

where is the glow or light that most seekers are ever after?" It has to be

said (and I know that you know this!) that whilst there is a seeker, there

will (for that ego) be no 'One without a second', whether or not glows or

lights are found.

 

I'm not sure what you mean by: "Also, looking at it logically, the mind,

intellect and sense organs are a result of our sense of separation from

surrounding objects. It can be vice versa too. The two sides are a mutual

inevitability. We cannot say which came first." Are you simply restating

the idea of the anirvacaniiya (indescribability) of adhyAsa (the

superimposition of an unreal appearance upon the non-dual reality as a

result of ignorance)?

 

Again you say that, when the error is seen, 'we become verily the world'. I

would have said that, once the error is seen, it is known that there is no

world (separate from the Self). There is no 'becoming' for that would be

change. You go on to say: "This 'knowing' does not happen through mind and

intellect. It is a natural growth on oneself whereby the growth consumes

the error and the individual self." Your metaphor is a strange one. A growth

is again something separate and 'other'. I'm unclear what you are getting at

here.

 

Then you say: "Such encumbrances (i.e. mind, intellect and sense organs) are

non-existent in the freedom that he is because their origin - the sense of

separation -has completely and irreversibly vanished." Surely you cannot

mean this? Sages still have all of these faculties don't they. It would be

rather difficult to communicate with us without them! Is it not simply that

they are known to be part of the illusion and do not in any way act as a

limitation?

 

I'm certainly happy with your supposition that there might be aliens with

totally, well... 'alien' sense organs. Why not? But as for 'explanation',

within the vyAvahArika context, I'm happy with an evolutionary explanation.

Those organisms whose random mutations are more suited to their environment

of external stimuli (i.e. those embryonic senses that enable them to

survive) are the ones that pass their genetic information onto the next

generation.

 

Finally, you say: "Self-realization undeniably has a universality...". Not

sure again what you mean by this. Is it possible for starfish to realise

themselves? Or is this restricted to a level of intelligence or

self-awareness? Or 'life'? What about computers? (Or have we had that

discussion before?!)

 

Best wishes,

 

Dennis

[Guest guest]

--- Dennis Waite <dwaite wrote:

> Hi Sri Nair,

>

> I must confess that I always thought that the use of

> the word 'light' or

> similar was entirely metaphorical, as when we draw a

> light bulb above

> someone's head to symbolise the dawning of

> understanding.

 

Good Evening Dennis,

I have a hunch that for the Vedic seers the rising of

the sun and dawn's rays were not mere metaphors but

that the physical rising sun, when seen correctly

through discrimination, is held in the rising sun of

inspiration which is 'held' 'within'...the English

here is nonsense...in awakening.

 

RgVeda VI.9.6

5 ‘Mine ears unclose to hear, mine eye to see him; the

light that harbours in my spirit broadens.

Far roams my mind whose thoughts are in the distance.

What shall I speak, what shall I now imagine?’

vi me karNA patayato vi cakSurvIdaM jyotirhRdaya

AhitaM yat

vi me manashcarati dUraAdhIH kiM svid vakSyAmikimu nU

maniSye’

 

Or there is the magnificent simple statement:

I.12.6 which state: ‘By Agni Agni is inflamed.’

 

 

Hence the yajna of any event, ie. discrimination is at

the three levels:

Adhibhautic: regarding the external world

Adhidaivic: regarding divine beings

Adhiyatmic: regarding spiritual truth

 

I continue with my hunch...for that is all it

is....with reference to Yaska’s Nirukta; yajnadaivate

pushpaphale devatadhyAtme vA)

Durgacharya comments on this:

‘Knowledge of sacrifice is the flower, of which the

knowledge of divine beings may be considered as the

fruit. The knowledge of divine beings is in turn the

flower whose fruit is universal knowledge of the Self.

This is what is established by the whole Veda If the

dharma is leading to material prosperity is performed,

the knowledge of the gods is the reward. If on the

other hand the dharma leading to spiritual beatitude

is practised, then both the yajnika and daivika become

the flower; the daivika, which includes in itself the

yajnika becomes the flower and the adhyatmika the

fruit.’

Quoted from ‘The heart of the Rigveda’ Mahuli R

Gopalacharya, Somaiya pub. 1971 pp.10-11

 

Madathil wanted some references re. Light ( I am fully

in agreement about avoiding the chasers of experiences

of light but have many accounts in my researches that

are are of the pratibha kind.):

Upadesha Sahasri 12. Metrical Section entitled

prakAshaH:

1.Just as a man (erroneously) looks upon his body

placed in the Sun as having the property of light in

it, so, he looks upon the intellect pervaded by the

reflection of pure consciousness as the Self, the

Witness.

2The Self gets identified with whatever is seen in the

world. It is for this reason that an ignorant man does

not know himself (to be brahman).

3. An ignorant man gets identified with objects of

knowledge and does not know the Self (which is

different from them) like the tenth boy who got

identified as it were with the other nine.

 

I trust that you all know the story of the 'Tenth

Man'. The above translation is by Swamai Jagadananda

 

Or maybe this is useful :

PanchadasI 8. kUThasthadIpaH

 

1.As the already illumined wall, by the sunlight from

the original Sun of the space, is also illumined by

the light reflected from the sun in the mirror; so

also, the already illumined body by the kuThastha

caitanya, is also illumined by the jIva...the

reflected consciousness in the intellect.

2.In the gaps among the many reflected sun-light beams

from many mirrors, one can yet see another light

manifested, even in the absence of these reflected

light beams, ie. the direct light of the sun from the

sky is present even on those spots which are illumined

by the reflected lights.

3.Similarly the kuThastha caitanya should be

understood by proper discrimination, as illuminating

the specific thoughts of the cidAbhAsa; in between the

thoughts and in their absence as in deep sleep.

 

Trans.Swami Anubhavananda

If you want the transliterations of the above I will

put them up later.

 

Or here is a description of pratibha:……Pratibhaa,

otherwise known as Paraa Sammvit or Citi SZakti, means

in the AAgama, especially in the Tripuraa and Trika

sections of it, the power of self-revelation or

self-illumination of the Supreme Spirit, with which it

is essentially and eternally identical…….

According to all the systems such knowledge is

considered transcendental, being held to be free of

time and space limitations, which are imposed as a

matter of necessity on all inferior knowledge and form

the indispensable conditions of the latter which

govern the origin or manifestation of the latter………It

is aptly described as simultaneously illuminating

everything in every aspect and as eternal (Yoga Suutra

III.84.)’

‘Aspects of Indian Thought’ Dr Gopinath Kaviraj

PP.1-2

 

 

Please forgive the lack of fluent exposition but I

wanted to give some scripture on this one.

I have a friend who has been paralysed and unable to

speak after a brain haemorrhage two weeks ago and may

not be able to contribute regularly as her husband has

MS.

Having been 'written' of a week ago we are now getting

responses through her eyes. Note for Dennis:She is an

ex-SES lady so she has had had all the practice

sounding Sanskrit vowels. Her husband and I are

getting her to hear them sounding subtly and then

listening to Om. We are hoping that this will help the

body re-establish the machinery for speech.

 

Hope the verse above are of interest to those who have

nor encountered them before,

 

Ken Knight

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "Dennis Waite" <dwaite@a...> wrote:

> Hi Sri Nair,

>

> I must confess that I always thought that the use of the word 'light' or

> similar was entirely metaphorical, as when we draw a light bulb above

> someone's head to symbolise the dawning of understanding.

 

Namaste Madathilji,

 

Thanks for a most stimulating introduction to the month's

topic.

 

Here are some points that may be of interest:

 

There may be a deeper mystery to the 'metaphor' of light

than we can fathom.

 

For example, when Rishi Vamadeva said (RigVeda 4:26:1/ Brihad. upan

1:4:10), "ahaM manur abhavaM sUryashchAham..." ["I was Manu, and the

Sun too..."Wilson's translation of Sayana; and Radhakrishnan], what

did he mean?

 

When Rishi Trishanku said (Taittiriya upanishad 1:10:1): "...Urdhva

pavitro vAjinIva svamR^itamasmi | draviNaM savarchasam..." [ " I am

like that pure Reality (of the Self) that is in the sun. I am the

effulgent wealth" tr. Sw. Gambhirananda].

 

When Yajnavalkya told Janaka (Brihadaranyaka upan. 4:3:vi) : "When the

sun has set, and the moon has set, and the fire has gone out, and

speech has stopped, what light does a person here have?

........'Atmaivasya jyotirbhavatiAtmanaivAyaM jyotiShAste, palyayte,

karma kurute, vipalyeti it '.The Self indeed is his light...for with

the Self indeed as the light, one sits, moves about, does one's work,

and returns." [tr. Radhakrishnan.]

 

Ramana Maharshi himself wrote his famous verse:

"hR^idayakuharamadhye kevalaM brahmamAtraM

hyahahamiti sAkShAdAtmaruupeNa bhAti..."

"Inside the cave of the Heart, the pureand InfiniteBeing Himself

shines as the Self, the limitless I..."

[tr. Laxman Sharma ('Who')].

 

Some devotees saw Ramana's form dissolving, and replaced by an

'effulgence'. When he left his earthly body, he blazed across the sky

like a meteor of light. He often referred to Arunachala as Shiva of

the form of a column of Fire.

 

p. 2 Day by Day with Bhagavan by A. Devaraja Mudaliar (1968,

Ramanashram) has this conversation:

 

"Mr. T.P.Ramachandra Aiyar asked Bhagavanthe meaning of ... (words in

Tamil script).. in Reality in Forty Verses):

 

Bhagavan: ...It refers to that light of manas in which we see all the

world, both the known and the unknown of the world. There is first

the white light, so to call it, of the Self,which transcends both

light and darkness. In it no object can be seen. There is neither seer

nor seen. Then there is total darkness or avidya in which also no

objects are seen. But from the Self proceeds a reflected light, the

light of pure manas, and it is this light which gives room for the

existence of all the film of the world which is seen neither in total

light nor in total darkness, but only in the subdued or reflected

light. It is this light which is referred to in the stanza.".

 

The references to sound, anahata or others, are a rarity in advaita

literature, if they occur at all.

 

 

Regards,

 

Sunder

[Guest guest]

dear sir,

 

is there light in enlightenment. yes. we need the devine eye like

what arjuna was given to see that. as in Gita the experience of

Arjuna when he saw 1000 suns blazing together.this is the same which

was experienced by Sri Ramana maharishi when he entered the

arunachala.saint vallalar of jyoti movement too talks about this kind

of light.in the end of Narayaneeyam when Bhattathri fell at the feet

of Lord Guruvayoor, he too saw a bright light and in that he had the

vision of gopalan. his starting word "Agre Paschyami" and that of

Arjuna's "Paschami devan" gives me the impression both have the light.

 

cdr bvn

[Guest guest]

Namaste all.

 

The discussion on whether there is 'light' in Enlightenment is

picking up very well. Though I am not yet ready to pick up the

thread, may I suggest that in the literature of Aurobindo,

particularly those where he answers questions from the letters of

correspondents, he discusses the problem of 'light' in Enlightenment

and during meditation. All sorts of colours are identified by him

and meanings given to these colours in relation to the progress

towards the ultimate 'samAdhi'. I read these letters long long ago

when they did not mean anything to me. Today I don't remember them.

But if anybody cares to search through the Letters of Aurobindo, I

am sure there will be more light on 'light' in Enlightenment !

 

PraNAms to all advaitins

profvk

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "V. Krishnamurthy" <profvk> wrote:

>

> Namaste all.

>

> The discussion on whether there is 'light' in Enlightenment is

> picking up very well. Though I am not yet ready to pick up the

> thread, may I suggest that in the literature of Aurobindo,

> particularly those where he answers questions from the letters of

> correspondents, he discusses the problem of 'light' in Enlightenment

> and during meditation. All sorts of colours are identified by him

> and meanings given to these colours in relation to the progress

> towards the ultimate 'samAdhi'. I read these letters long long ago

> when they did not mean anything to me. Today I don't remember them.

> But if anybody cares to search through the Letters of Aurobindo, I

> am sure there will be more light on 'light' in Enlightenment !

 

Namaste,

 

The Letters on Yoga are on-line at:

 

http://intyoga.online.fr/exp_real.htm

 

 

 

For the rest of his writings:

 

http://intyoga.online.fr/text_idx.htm

 

# Sri Aurobindo: From the 1775 pages of "Letters on Yoga"(1926 to

1938/1942)

[Link The huge full text of "Letters on Yoga" can be downloaded on

EXTERNAL SITES in txt-format: volume 1 here or here, volume 2 here or

here, and in Word6-format volume 1 here, volume 2 here - more than 1

Megabyte each one! - There are Part One, Two and Three - Part Four is

missing]. [Downloading Zip-file requires that you press the RIGHT

button of the mouse, then click on "save as..." You must have a

unzipping software]

 

 

Regards,

 

Sunder

[Guest guest]

Namaste Dennisji and all.

 

Thanks to all for their prolific responses. Let me answer Dennisji

first. The avalanche of scriptural quotes from Kenji, Sunderji,

Prof. Krishnamurthy-ji (from Aurobindo) are beyond me to comment on

at the present moment as they call for deeper study. Moreover, I am

not very competent in those areas. I will return to Maniji and

Vidyarthiyarji as soon as possible.

 

Dennisji:

> You say that Ramana did not refer to such experiences and I think

you are

> probably right. What he did stress is that 'it was more important

to be

> aware of the experiencer than to indulge in or analyse the

experience' ('Be

> As You Are', David Godman, Arkana P. 170). It is the same with

siddhis. He

> was very derogatory of these. I rather like his statement that: 'If

with

> limited perceptions one is miserable, with extended perceptions the

misery

> must increase proportionately' (op cit P. 169).

 

 

MRN:

 

Brilliant! You see I can't help talking in terms of light! We

should have this statement framed and hung in our meditation rooms!

 

Dennisji:

 

Just a pedantic observation to begin with: one

> cannot 'become verily Sat-Chit-Ananda' since one already is it

(whether one

> realises it or not!).

 

MRN:

 

Dennis-ji, you are right. I am using language - a limited tool - to

talk about something that cannot be talked about and that knows not

limitations. I wanted to use the verb "realize" but was very wary

about it. So, I thought "become" was a comparatively better

substitute.

 

Dennisji:

> You say "If this 'being One without a second' is self-realization,

then

> where is the glow or light that most seekers are ever after?" It

has to be

> said (and I know that you know this!) that whilst there is a

seeker, there

> will (for that ego) be no 'One without a second', whether or not

glows or

> lights are found.

 

 

MRN:

 

You are right that I know.

 

Dennisji:

> I'm not sure what you mean by: "Also, looking at it logically, the

mind,

> intellect and sense organs are a result of our sense of separation

from

> surrounding objects. It can be vice versa too. The two sides are a

mutual

> inevitability. We cannot say which came first." Are you simply

restating

> the idea of the anirvacaniiya (indescribability) of adhyAsa (the

> superimposition of an unreal appearance upon the non-dual reality

as a

> result of ignorance)?

 

MRN:

 

Yes. I have adhyAsA in mind the technicalities of which have always

baffled me. Please recall the inconclusive but lengthy discussion

that we had on this topic last year. I didn't want to fan the embers

and, therefore, made it rather simplistic (Incidentally, that is the

very word you used in response to my first post on adhyAsA last

year!). All objectified phenomena, including mind and intellect and

the sense of separation are an error. The three look so simultaneous

that we cannot say with any certainty which precedes which. I also

meant that attempting to ascertain the progression of their origin is

a futile exercise. What need to be done is only to acknowledge and

accept the error so that we are equipped to live without being

tricked by it.

 

Dennisji:

> Again you say that, when the error is seen, 'we become verily the

world'. I

> would have said that, once the error is seen, it is known that

there is no

> world (separate from the Self). There is no 'becoming' for that

would be

> change.

 

MRN:

 

Well. When you become the world, there is no separate world! Why I

prefer the verb 'become' has already been explained above. It is a

realization that I am the whole world.

 

Dennisji:

 

You go on to say: "This 'knowing' does not happen through mind and

> intellect. It is a natural growth on oneself whereby the growth

consumes

> the error and the individual self." Your metaphor is a strange one.

A growth

> is again something separate and 'other'. I'm unclear what you are

getting at

> here.

 

MRN:

 

The word "growth" here doesn't mean anything like a tumour or an

offshoot. It is a metamorphosis or an expansion. But, if I used

those words, there would certainly be an objection that such words

signify change. What can I do then? Accepting that it is an

inadeauate metaphor, can you please suggest a better substitute?

What I meant is a stage (again that word can be objected to but that

can't be helped)where the realized is not encumbered by limitations.

 

Dennisji:

> Then you say: "Such encumbrances (i.e. mind, intellect and sense

organs) are

> non-existent in the freedom that he is because their origin - the

sense of

> separation -has completely and irreversibly vanished." Surely you

cannot

> mean this? Sages still have all of these faculties don't they. It

would be

> rather difficult to communicate with us without them! Is it not

simply that

> they are known to be part of the illusion and do not in any way act

as a

> limitation?

 

MRN:

 

The sages seem to communicate with you just because you are tricked

by the sense of separation. You see them outside yourself. If it is

known that they are you, where is the communication? Your gurus are

your own projection. You are always self-taught!

 

Dennisji:

>I'm certainly happy with your supposition that there might be aliens

with

> totally, well... 'alien' sense organs. Why not? But as

for 'explanation',

> within the vyAvahArika context, I'm happy with an evolutionary

explanation.

> Those organisms whose random mutations are more suited to their

environment

> of external stimuli (i.e. those embryonic senses that enable them to

> survive) are the ones that pass their genetic information onto the

next

> generation.

 

MRN:

 

The reference to the possibility of such aliens existing is just to

drive home the point that our vision is coloured by the stimuli to

which we are exposed to in our vyAvahArikA. Darwin and evolution,

not to speak of the recent mind-boggling advances in genetics, are

our projections in this vyAvahArikA. As an Advaitin, while

acknowledging their theoretical and practical importance in this

vyAvahArikA, what I need to understand is only that they are all

because I AM.

 

 

Dennisji:

> Finally, you say: "Self-realization undeniably has a

universality...". Not

> sure again what you mean by this. Is it possible for starfish to

realise

> themselves? Or is this restricted to a level of intelligence or

> self-awareness? Or 'life'? What about computers? (Or have we had

that

> discussion before?!)

 

MRN:

 

The vyAvahArikA is because I AM is the universality I am talking

about. It should be true anywhere in this universe because THAT IS

THE TRUTH. Well. The starfish is in my vyAvahArikA. When my

vyAvahArikA resolves into myself on self-realization, I should assume

that the starfish is also realized. Where is the starfish then when

we have even done away with the gurus? Enquiring into if the

starfish can have self-realization is an uncalled for exercise. It

should apply to computers too. (You are right - Michael brought up

the computers before.) Self-realization being limitless, there

cannot simply be individual self-realizations at least from the point

of view of the realized!

 

Best wishes,

 

Madathil Nair

[Guest guest]

Namaste Maniji.

 

Thank you very much for your englightening comments in message #

18715.

 

I would rather go back to your message # 18469 where you stated as

follows:

______________________________

 

"Taitiriya Upanishad says "Sathyam, Gnanam, Anantham (Not Anandam)

Brahma".

Anantham goes with Sathyam and Gnanam i.e. Anantham Sathyam and

Anantham Gnanm,

i.e. limitless or infinite Existence and limitless Gnanam

(Consciousness or

Awareness). Since it is infinite Existence and Infinite

Consciousness, it lacks

nothing and therefore it is Anandam. Anandam is result of Contentment

because

Fullness of Self, being Infinite Existence and Infinite Consciousness

or

Awareness.

 

The above is based on the Teaching of Pujya Swami Dayananda

Saraswati."

_______________

 

I don't have Taitiriya right with me now. However, I note that the

message therein is what I have laboured to understand in Sat-Chit-

Ananda. Ananda, as Fullness, is verily a synonym for Anantham as

Sathyam substitutes Sat and Gnanam substitues Chit. Being synonyms to

the One and Only Truth, they all serve the purpose of advaitic

explanation well.

 

Incidentally, Pujya Swami Dayananda Saraswatiji is my main source of

advaitic inspiration!

 

The Malayalam word "Mathi" (enough) is the symbol of contentment.

How nicely you have related it to wisdom (again "mathi")!

 

Thanks once again and praNAms to all Advaitins.

 

Madathil Nair

[Guest guest]

Namaste Shri Vidyanathan-Ji.

 

Reference your post # 18716.

 

First of all my apologies. In one of my earlier posts this morning,

I referred to you as Vidyarthiyarji. That happened because I misread

your e-mail id (vaidyanathiyer) as Vidyarthiyar just because I hadn't

my glasses on. Look, how we make mistakes even when the light shines!

 

Now that the error has been corrected and apologized for, may I say I

agree with all that you have said. Your response was simply

brilliant and illuminating(again light eh?).

 

The purpose of the discussion, as you have rightly understood, is to

look at self-realization without reference to external stimuli like

sound and light to which we are used in our daily life. However, as

we are using the very limited tool of language to understand the

limitless, we cannot escape employing such references at least

metaphorically. Your sun and clouds metaphor is, therefore, very

illuminating and I know that this illumination has taken place

without the help of ordinary light. And, that exactly is the point I

am labouring to present. In our vyAvahArikA, we can only write

material descriptions. The "real illumination" is beyond our

inadequate descriptions and, therefore, very very intuitive and

difficult to communicate about.

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

[Guest guest]

Dear Sri Nairji,

I am also following closely the unfoldment of Self done by Swami Dayananda

Saraswati and have been attending his disciple, Swami Atmatrptananda Saraswati's

classes in Calcutta for a quite long time. There is a tape series of Swami

Dayananda Saraswati on Satyam Gnanam Anantham where he has very elaborately

explained about Brahman and its definition in Taithiriya Up.

The Pramanam for Self Knowledge is Upanishads i.e. Vedanta and I have not come

across any Upanishad where there is any mention of light or such other

experiences. (I may be wrong). All said, is, Self Knowledge liberates one from

all apparent Limitations, and tobe very correct the release itself is apparent,

as concluded in Ashtravakra Samhita.

Hari Om

R.S.Mani

Madathil Rajendran Nair <madathilnair wrote:

Namaste Shri Vidyanathan-Ji.

 

Reference your post # 18716.

 

First of all my apologies. In one of my earlier posts this morning,

I referred to you as Vidyarthiyarji. That happened because I misread

your e-mail id (vaidyanathiyer) as Vidyarthiyar just because I hadn't

my glasses on. Look, how we make mistakes even when the light shines!

 

Now that the error has been corrected and apologized for, may I say I

agree with all that you have said. Your response was simply

brilliant and illuminating(again light eh?).

 

The purpose of the discussion, as you have rightly understood, is to

look at self-realization without reference to external stimuli like

sound and light to which we are used in our daily life. However, as

we are using the very limited tool of language to understand the

limitless, we cannot escape employing such references at least

metaphorically. Your sun and clouds metaphor is, therefore, very

illuminating and I know that this illumination has taken place

without the help of ordinary light. And, that exactly is the point I

am labouring to present. In our vyAvahArikA, we can only write

material descriptions. The "real illumination" is beyond our

inadequate descriptions and, therefore, very very intuitive and

difficult to communicate about.

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

 

 

 

 

Sponsor

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Namaste Prof. Krishnamurthyji and Sunderji.

 

Reference posts # 18722 and 18723.

 

Immense thanks indeed for the voluminous quotes from the great

Aurobindo, which Members would find very valuable, particularly in

the context of our current discussion on Englightenment.

 

No doubt, it will take us all a long time to understand him well, if

at all, considering the ocean of wealth that now Sunderji has opened

before us.

 

Personally, I find that I can vibe with him well when he talks about

devotion to the Mother and the experiences arising therefrom.

However, as an Advaitin, I am confounded too. My predicament is

illustrated in an old post of mine (# 15034) quoted below.

 

Nevertheless, I have no doubt that these quotes have enriched our

discussion as we are keeping an open mind to all scriptures, sages

and gurus.

 

Thanks once again and praNAms to all advaitins.

 

Madathil Nair

_________

 

Post # 15034

 

Namaste Prof. Krishnamurthy-Ji.

 

Thank you, Sir, for the four detailed posts on Aurobindo's

interpretations, which I read meticulously over and over again as

advised.

 

Aurobindo has employed a terminology quite dissimilar to that of

advaita. I, therefore, had difficulty correlating his message to the

landmarks on our advaita terrain with which I am most familiar and

comfortable.

 

For example, can we really have advaitic parallels to terms like

supramental infinite, supraconscious, extra-cosmic, supreme godhead

etc? Even if we think we have advaitic approximations, will it be

right on our part to understand them as such, i.e. did Aurobindo

employ them to mean the way an advaitin would understand them?

 

I have my own doubts. Aurobindo knew advaita. Then, why did he have

to go in for an altogether different set of terminology? He could

have retained the advaitic terms at least wherever possible and

invented fresh ones where it was absolutely necessary to drive home a

differing point of view.

 

As you have rightly noted in your profuse comments in parentheses in

the upper case scattered all over Aurobindo's interpretations, he

sounds like an advaitin sometimes and then a viSiSta advaitin at

other moments and then a mixture of both. There are also points

where he is not immediately comprehensible and seems to say something

quite different and new. Nevertheless, by his sheer power of

expression and linguistic flourish, he captivates the reader and

carries conviction with him. As the element of divine experience

overweighs his interpretations, it is often difficult to share his

frequency and understand him fully well. This has left me a bit

confounded. An advaitin doesn't feel quite at home with the profound

ponderings as he does with other interpretations (e.g. the

commentaries of Swami Satchitanandedra and others which we regularly

have on our List).

 

I am not adequately read on Aurobindo. I would, therefore, like to

be referred to scholarly works that have attempted to correlate

advaita (our area of interest) to Aurobindo. If no such references

exist, can any scholar of our list attempt a short one so that we are

not lost without our advaitic moorings when we plunge again into the

Aurobindo ocean?

 

Pranams.

 

Madathil Nair

 

______________

[Guest guest]

Namaste all,

I notice that in some mails we have references to

speech and light. This at every level. Certainly the

Rgvedic Rishis knew of this:

RgVeda X.177

' a pataMgó vaácam mánasaa bibharti b taáM

gandharvó avadad gárbhe antáH

c taáM dyótamaanaaM svaríyam maniiSaám d Rtásya

padé kaváyo ní paanti'

 

'The flying Bird (the Sun) bears Speech within his

spirit: erst the Gandharva in the womb pronounced it:

And at the seat of sacrifice the sages cherish this

radiant, heavenly-bright invention.'

 

Although the primal word, pranava shabda, Om, is

beyond speech just as the Light of Self is beyond

seeing, it is all pervading as the continuum. Its

presence in our speech brings a subtle light and

sweetness to our speech which may be appreciated by

those who can hear and see and taste.

Refs.

'I understand law sir. Truth is like a feather. When I

tell lies the words are heavy but when I speak the

truth the words are light and flow with ease, like a

feather.'

(Words of a ten-year-old pupil I was teaching many

years ago.)

RgVeda I.112

'12 The bright, the blessed One shines forth extending

her rays like kine, as a flood rolls his waters.

Never transgressing the divine commandments, she is

beheld visible with the sunbeams.

13 O Dawn enriched with ample wealth, bestow on us the

wondrous gift

Wherewith we may support children and children's sons.

14 Thou radiant mover of sweet sounds, with wealth of

horses and of kine

Shine thou on us this day, O Dawn auspiciously.'

 

Indeed we may pray, along with our Vedic ancestors,

that our speech be enlightened.

I hope that the above is not a diversion and end with:

 

In KavyadarSha 1.3 , a text on Sanskrit Poetry by

Dandi we read .

Iha ShishtAnuShishtanAM ShishtAnAmapi sarvathA |

vAcAmeva prasadena lokayatra pravarate ||

‘The main aim of language is to communicate the

emotions and feelings expressed from the mind and

heart of a speaker to that of a listener by means of

speech and without this enlightened jyoti of bhAshA

(speech) or Shabda (word), the whole cosmos will be

engulfed in darkness.’

 

May our discussions be enlightened,

 

Ken Knight

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Namaste Kenji.

 

Your post # 18719.

 

Thanks for your prolific quotes which all will help our discussion.

 

You said beautifully so:

 

"I have a hunch that for the Vedic seers the rising of

the sun and dawn's rays were not mere metaphors but

that the physical rising sun, when seen correctly

through discrimination, is held in the rising sun of

inspiration which is 'held' 'within'...the English

here is nonsense...in awakening."

 

I am reminded of a scene in an Indian TV serial where Sage Agastya

looks up at the sky, raises his hands and dances in sheer abandonment

chanting the GAyatri Mantra. This can happen to many aspirants even

if they have not reached Agastya's stage. The mantra and the skies

have transported even me to states of ecstasy though I would stop

short of calling them "pure bliss" or Enlightenment.

 

The glories of the heavens have always been part and parcel of our

mystic literature. No wonder then that I am also influenced by them

like others. It is all in our cultural unconscious and not limited

to any particular religion or faith. These days, even the secrets

of astrophysics and quantum theory make me ecstatic. This, I believe,

happens with a spiritual bend of mind where one appreciates the

existence of oneself in everything. No doubt, such experiences are

spiritually elevating and rewarding.

 

But here, are we not talking about Enlightenment – i.e. about the

Ultimate in adhyAtmikA? While I see that Sankara has used

metaphorical references to light and astral luminiaries (bhAti etc.),

he has avoided such allusions in his description of a jeevan mukta.

That is why I referred to his JivanmuktAnanda Lahari. I see that his

Yati Panchaka also is devoid of any such references. Is there such

references in his Kaupeena StOtra or even in the Bhagwad Gita when it

talks about the stitaprajnA? Our Sunderji can definitely help us

here.

 

My hunch, therefore, is that while it may be helpful to refer to

light metaphorically in the formulation of spiritual knowledge, one

has to strictly avoid such allusions when it comes to talking about

jIvanmuktAhood (I coined the word in order to avoid calling it a

state. Yet, it would be understood only as a state. That is the

tragic inadequacy of language!)

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

[Guest guest]

Namaste all.

 

Shri Ananda Wood has very kindly sent me his following verses on

Enlightenment with permission to post them on our Forum. That is a

lot of food for thought and rumination.

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

_______________

 

The 'light' in 'enlightenment'

 

All objects shown by sense and mind

are shown through their appearances,

which come and go in course of time.

 

But each of these appearances

is known by light of consciousness,

which is thus common to them all.

 

Whatever may appear depends

upon the presence of that light.

Without that light, it could not show.

 

Each disappearance too depends

upon that knowing light, remaining

present as it knows a change

in passing -- from a state where something

shows, to another, different state

which shows that something disappeared.

 

Throughout all things that come and go,

throughout all changes that pass by,

a knowing presence carries on,

stays common to all different states.

 

That presence is called 'consciousness'.

It's very being is to know.

 

It does not know through any act

that it puts on, not through an act

that starts or stops or gets affected

in the course of changing time.

 

Its knowing is just what it is:

pure light whose nature is to shine.

 

That light is not an outward act

seen going out to object-things.

It is its own illumination,

lighting its own self within.

 

That self shines pure and objectless:

quite unperceived by outward sense,

quite unconceived by any thoughts

or feelings in our dreaming minds.

 

It can't be known through sense or mind,

but only in identity

with what one is oneself within.

 

Returning there -- from sense and mind

to one's own true identity --

one comes at last to light itself

on which all that appears depends.

 

That is the changeless ground of light

beneath all differing appearances.

It is their one reality:

which they all show, each one of them,

beneath their seeming differences.

 

To know it simply as it is,

quite unconfused with what it's not,

is said to be 'enlightenment'.

 

------------------------------

 

'Enlightenment'

 

'Enlightenment' is that strange case

of going to a funny place

where there is found to be no 'where',

and no one's left who has gone 'there'.

 

Seen from outside, as just a part

of seeming world, it has a start:

when understanding shines at last,

so that all ignorance seems past.

 

But seen itself, in its own sight,

it's known as nothing else but light.

It's light before all thought of 'time',

before all thought of 'me' and 'mine'.

 

That light is always present here,

beneath all changes which appear;

no less when darkness seems to hide

that light thought seen from the outside.

 

Though it is thought to disappear,

that light shines unaffected here.

Though darkness seems to hide its face,

it shines untouched from its own place.

 

And there, beneath all seeming face,

no thought conceives of time and place.

No state is called 'enlightenment',

not found by 'us', nor 'heaven' sent.

 

It's only truth that's known for sure;

all thought leaves room to doubt some more.

All states are just uncertain thought

that some have sold, and others bought.

 

All states are thoughts that come and go;

they are not what we really know.

The truth we know is always free

from any changes that we see.

 

'Enlightenment' is only light

that shines itself, in its own sight.

Beneath all doubtful, shifting show,

'enlightenment' is all we know.

 

------------------------------

 

Knowing and being

 

All pictures known by sense and mind

depend upon assumed beliefs

which make the pictures meaningful.

 

But when what's thus assumed (beneath

the pictured show) is opened up

to careful questioning, the mind

that asks reflects beneath what's shown

to that which knows the picturing.

 

Then mind returns from pictured things

to that which lights them from within.

That knowing light is consciousness,

whose very being is to know.

 

It does not know by any act

that it puts on; but just by what

it always is, in its own self,

throughout all changing states of mind,

through all experience of the world.

 

Its knowing is just what it is,

illuminating all the acts

of mind and sense that make appear

the pictured objects of the world.

 

Mind's seeming knowledge is an act

that it puts on to picture things.

All things seen pictured in this way

depend upon the knowing light

of consciousness to make them known.

 

But consciousness shines by itself,

by its own light, whose knowing and

whose being are identical.

 

------------------------------

 

Painted pictures

 

Where sights of world are broken up

in shapes and colours, recombined

to picture scenes suffused by light,

 

what can be real in this show

of paint-created fantasy?

 

At first, the world's reality

seems left behind, forsaken for

imagined worlds of sight and dream,

in search of vision's mystery.

 

But it is only mind's belief --

in seeming sights of body's sense --

that has in fact been left behind.

 

What's real is no longer seen

in sensual body's seeming world,

nor in ideas believed by mind;

 

but underneath the changing pictures,

in the canvas that continues

through their over-painted shapes.

 

That canvas is a changeless background,

on which sense and mind keep painting

pictures for our fond belief.

 

The pictures form a changing show

that's known by light of consciousness.

 

As different pictures come and go,

that which knows them carries on.

It is their common, background light:

of which each one of them is made,

in which their different forms consist.

 

Perceived by sense or thought by mind,

all worlds are pictures made of light.

 

What could they be apart from light,

appearing in these seeming forms

of sight and sense and thought and dream?

 

What's real here but light itself:

which lights all forms, from which they're made?

 

And what is light that lights itself

but consciousness whose knowing is

its own illuminating self,

whose very being is to shine?

 

It's that which can't be seen by sense,

nor dreamt by mind's imagining.

 

What can that be but one's own self,

found just by being what it is,

as one's own true identity:

 

beneath all pictures seen by sense,

beneath all dreams believed by mind,

beneath all paint that covers it?

___________

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "Madathil Rajendran Nair"

<madathilnair> wrote:

> While I see that Sankara has used

> metaphorical references to light and astral luminiaries (bhAti etc.),

> he has avoided such allusions in his description of a jeevan mukta.

> That is why I referred to his JivanmuktAnanda Lahari. I see that his

> Yati Panchaka also is devoid of any such references. Is there such

> references in his Kaupeena StOtra or even in the Bhagwad Gita when it

> talks about the stitaprajnA?

 

Namaste,

 

It appears that Kaupeena Stotra is another name of Yati

Panchaka (the refrain in each verse on the 4th line being

'kaupInavantaH khalu bhAgyavantaH').

 

A quick reference to Gita Bhashya showed , in 14:22, Shankara

refers to prakAsha - "Light is the effect of sattva....Sattvik guna ,

which is luminous....." in reference to the 'guNAtIta' person.

 

Regards,

 

Sunder

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sunderji.

 

Your quote of Dilip Roy in # 18735.

 

Reading it, a peace has settled on me. I feel lightened more than

enlightened. This is not to say that my feeling is any less

lustrous. My borther, Shri Narendran, whom I will be quoting on our

current topic, with of course the permission of our administrators as

he is a non-Member, feels that enlightenment has a lightening in it -

an unburdening. I argued with him that in self-relaization there is

no scope for an objective feeling and, therefore, for any sense of

unburdening. May be I am wrong and he is right. Anyway, thank you

very much for that quote as the simple smile of Bh. Ramana has always

fascinated and nurtured my spiritual bend of mind.

 

Your references to Bhagwad GItA and Sankara's meditation prayer have

been noted. Regarding the prayer, isn't it a material for meditation

where the aid of something familiar like light is required for the

aspirant to scale the heights of advaitic understanding whereby

ultimately he dissolves himself in himself togetherwith the

meditation tool. Hasn't Sankara sung "asangOham asangOham asangOham

punah punah, satchitAnanda rUpOham ahamEkAhamavyam"? Isn't that

satchitAnandarUpam still an objective visualization for the aspirant

which ultimately merges in himself when the goal is reached? Can't

we consider prakAsA or jyOti in the same sense? Isn't will there be

any jyoti left in the mundane sense the question we are asking?

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

 

 

P.S.: Somewhere on the way, I notice that we have broken the string

by introducing a differenlty-worded caption. May I request all to

return to the original caption for the sake of thread-continuity?

[Guest guest]

Namaste Shri Vaidyanathanji.

 

In your post # 18736 you said:

 

____________________

 

"in the final out come the lord has no definete form. i think i am

correct i want

to be corrected if i am wrong…………..

 

this form is not

visible because it is in gyana form. it does not have any particular

form so he says " gana is ambalam(temple) and ananda(bliss) is his

eternal dance."

_____________________

 

You are absolutely correct and I don't think this forum will have any

disagreement with you.

 

Thank you very much for your prolific comments. This discussion very

much needs your continued active particiation. As I said at the end

of my lead post, all shades of thinking are welcome. We can't think

of bars when it comes to an all-encompassing topic like Enlightenment.

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

[Guest guest]

> praNAm prabhuji

> Hare Krishna

> This is really a wonderful presentation by you prabhuji giving

absolutely no room for any doubts in the readers' mind about the topic

being discussed. Just I'd like to share my understanding prabhuji. Due

to time constraints I have not read the replies from other learned members

on this thread. If anybody addressed my observations already, kindly

ignore my mail.

> First of all, what we are discussing here is purely based on inference

since most of us are still operating from the platform of ignorance. This

reminds me Sri Sadananda prabhuji's statement *waker's analysation of

dreaming world*. Though we have the shAstra pramAna to describe what would

be the state of enlightement, for that matter even shrutis donot claim such

& such is the enlightened state, it simply say yatho vAcho nivartante

aprApya manasA saha. Nevertheless, we atleast intellectually know that

enlightenment according to advaita is a non-dual state i.e. one without

second (Ekam-Eva-advitiya). Sruti also says nehananAsti kiNchana. So, if

we think enlightened/realised state is a state in which there is abundant

illumination, immediately the advaitin ask what is the source of this

light?? what will be there apart from IT to illumine?? etc. etc. Even

if we see the extempore realisation story of Sri ramaNa maharShi there is

hardly any mention of flashy lights in that unique realisation.

Considering all this, it is very hard to conclude categorically whether

there is light in enlightenment.

> If we turn our heads to scriptures, in BG saNjaya says (11-12), that

virAt puruSha's (bhagavaan) radiance is more than effulgence of 1000 suns

blaze out simultaneously in full swing in sky ( divi sUrya sahasrasya),

this gives us an impression that supreme purusha is full of *light*,

further krishna himself says in 15-6(Nair prabhuji, this is what I was

trying to quote when we met in B.lore personally), in the ultimate abode of

vishnu there is no sun, moon nor even pAvakaH (agni/fire) that abode is

full of sva-Atma prakAsha, self effulgence. ( Br.Up. says he is Atmasya

Atma of Agni, Aditya etc.). Krishna clarifies this further in 15-12, the

light that is Consciousness, which causes the light in the sun, in the

moon, and in fire (yadAditya gatam tEjo ......yascharamasi yaschAgnou ) ,

know that light to be Mine (tattejo viddi mAmakaM). TaiterIya brahmaNa

says in virAja maNtra jyotirahaM ( I am jyoti), viraja vipApma etc. All

these scriptual quotes for the time being forced us to accept that there

must be some light in enlightenment. But question is from where does this

light originates?? is it self-effulgence (sva-prakASa)??

> Sruti clarifies this doubt for us, in Br. Up. (4-3-6) Janaka asks the

same question to sage yajnAvalkya "What light has this puruSha?? which is

the guiding light for the functions of this puruSa? etc. Sage yajnAvalkya

in his reply says using adhyArOpa apavAda ( discussion topic for the month

of November) first presumes the external sources of light such as sun,

moon, fire etc. & finally makes his claim clear that ( taking dream world &

sushupti states into consideration) Atman alone is the light of all this

since the puruSa still can function even in the absence of external sources

of light. Here shruti clearly says (Br.Up.-4-3-9) *this purusha is

self-effulgent*. So, there is absolutely nothing external light source

which are all mere superimposition just to prove self-effulgence nature of

our own swarUpa.

> Shankara clarifies shruti purports in sUtra bhAshya 3-2-4. While

commenting on dream state, he says, this state (dream state) has been taken

up for discussion only for the purpose of distinguishing the

self-effulgence nature of Atman, since in waking world it is difficult to

tell apart the very nature of self-effulgence owing to the contact of the

objects & the senses, and since there are the lights of the sun etc. which

are apparently in unification with IT.

> From the above, we can say that there is a luminosity in enlightenment

but this does not depend on any external sources. It is self-effulgence of

ever shining Atman who is the very source of external sources of light.

This is what my observation prabhuji, whatever it is worth. I am open for

correction from the learned members of this list.

> Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

> bhaskar

[Guest guest]

Namste Sri Ram et al,

Thank you for picking up my tentative excursion into

Tamil, a language about which my lack of knowledge is

total except for a delight on hearing it spoken. I

once sat for about 90 minutes listening to a talk in

Tamil. I was left with a delight in the sound of it

and intrigued by the 'ul' sound which seemed to

dominate.

Thank you also for illustrating how the question

fitted into our theme above on Light. The movement

into the use of prakAsha and jyoti in Shankara will

help us get away from the wordplay in the English

title, valid as it in setting out the topic. There is

much of value in an English discussion of the topic of

Light ...'eg. 'Truth in the Light' by Peter Fenwick, a

neuroscientist and philosopher in the UK.........but

to get at the question in Vedantin terms brings out

different subtleties. I look forward to reading the

postings of those more literate than I in Vedanta.

Today's offering from myself is from

Tirumantiram -

by Satguru Sivaya Subramuniyaswami

I had been interested by the connections in the

various postings between speech (sound) and light.

Hence the following:

 

2157 Nada Peaks in Turiya or Fourth State

>From Sushupti Center,

He further moves continuing,

Into Turiya Expanse

Leaving thoughts of world below;

On to peaks of Nada (in navel center) he ascends;

There rid of primordial ignorance,

He remains in Mauna (Silentless).

 

2158 Turiyatita Experience

When with silent letter "M"

The articulate letters "A" and "U" conjoins,

The Five Senses are withdrawn,

As limbs within the tortoise;

Then Jiva is by "Aum" pervaded;

The light Divine beams from within;

The Self its sentience loses;

--This we know not.

 

2159 State Beyond Turiya--(Turiyatita)

Turiya is in Jagrat experienced;

The foxes fourteen* (Indriyas etc.) of themselves die;

The swiftly steed of Prana flees,

How that State beyond Turiya (Turiyatita) is,

Impossible to state, indeed.

2160 All Jivas Experience These States of Awareness

Contaminated by Primordial Mala (Impurities) Five,

Jivas, all, the Five States of Awareness experience;

Endless indeed are the bodies and organs

That Maya endows;

All Souls, caught in birth and death,

Are by Karma alike struck.

 

2161 Maya Gives States of Experience For God's Grace

to Attain;

Jnanis Reach Mukti Direct

Maya feeds Jiva with Avasta experiences unbroken,

For the Jiva by Lord's Grace

To attain Mukti;

But the Jivas in Jnana born

Them Maya nears not;

And contemplating in Jnana

They direct attain Mukti.

 

2162 Consciousness Begins With Egoity

In the Primordial Slumber State of Jivas (Kevala

State)

Devoid of Awareness,

Egoity is activated;

Then Consciousness springs,

And actions diverse Jiva pursues;

>From the State of Kevala

Thus passing out,

He the Five States (Avastas) experiences,

Until he becomes Para Supreme.

 

2163 Maya Awakens Soul From Primordial Kevala

Thus passing out,

He the Five States (Avastas) experiences,

Until he becomes Para Supreme.

 

 

Again if this is too much of a diversion please delete

it.

 

Ken Knight

 

PS.

Plea to Sri Ram especially. In October 2004 I will be

presenting a day of study for a mixed group of people

( academics and people more practically based in their

spiritual enquiry) on 'I am' as a core concept in

world religions and philosophies. If you know of

further works on the WWW or books generally available

I would be very grateful to know more. The Tamil

voice has yet to be heard regularly here in the UK and

this seems to be our loss.

Please note that I am trying to get my mail boxes

sorted out as this one keeps filling up too quickly.

If you come away from this discussion group to follow

up my request could you please use:

anirvacaniya

 

Many thanks

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Namaste Bhaskarji.

 

Your post # 18745 refers.

 

As expected, you have come in with all the support that scriptures

can provide. I should say you have been more exhaustive than all the

other scriptural references we have received so far.

 

Don't ever think that I am questioning you here. I respect you and

your scriptural quotes. I am just presenting a doubt for discussion.

 

We are forced to go by our vyAvahArika frame of reference even in

this discussion about the Ultimate as we are in the transactional as

you rightly stated. The oft-quoted example in advaita of late is

electricity, which shines our bulbs. If the question is asked what

do the bulbs shine after (anubhAti), the correct answer is

electricity, which doesn't shine on its own. However, the knowledge

that it is electricity shines because that is evident. Thus, in the

case of the atman, isn't it self-evidence that is implied by all the

scriputural references? I mean the knowledge that I AM, SO THE REST

ARE. Then it derives that the self-shining is self-evidence. If we

impose a luminosity on the Atman, then we are in the danger of

running into objectification and thereby subjecting ourselves to the

question: luminosity wherefrom?

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sri Bhaskerji:

 

Sri Nair has alrady answered your question beautifully and let me add

the following additional comments. In simplistic terms, we have two

visions of the 'light' - the spiritual vision and the worldly

vision. With the spiritual vision, we are able to see the invisible

light where as with the worldly vision, we see the visible light! We

are like the burning candles. While burning the ego (vasanas) we can

see the visible light and after melting the ego (wax) the visible

light disappears, the candle disappers and 'I' only remains! This is

the 'invisible light' that can only be realized after complete

melting away the ego. When the fire (sadhana) melts away the ego, the

physical light is visible and with the spiritual vision, we can

experiencce the invisible light!

 

Warmest regards,

 

Ram Chandran

 

advaitin, "Madathil Rajendran Nair"

<madathilnair> wrote:

> Namaste Bhaskarji.

>

> Your post # 18745 refers.

>

> As expected, you have come in with all the support that scriptures

> can provide. I should say you have been more exhaustive than all

the