Guest guest Posted September 1, 2003 Report Share Posted September 1, 2003 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 1, 2003 Report Share Posted September 1, 2003 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 1, 2003 Report Share Posted September 1, 2003 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 1, 2003 Report Share Posted September 1, 2003 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 1, 2003 Report Share Posted September 1, 2003 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 1, 2003 Report Share Posted September 1, 2003 --- 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 1, 2003 Report Share Posted September 1, 2003 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 1, 2003 Report Share Posted September 1, 2003 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 1, 2003 Report Share Posted September 1, 2003 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 1, 2003 Report Share Posted September 1, 2003 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 1, 2003 Report Share Posted September 1, 2003 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 1, 2003 Report Share Posted September 1, 2003 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 2, 2003 Report Share Posted September 2, 2003 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 2, 2003 Report Share Posted September 2, 2003 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 2, 2003 Report Share Posted September 2, 2003 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 ______________ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 2, 2003 Report Share Posted September 2, 2003 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 2, 2003 Report Share Posted September 2, 2003 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 2, 2003 Report Share Posted September 2, 2003 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? ___________ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 2, 2003 Report Share Posted September 2, 2003 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 2, 2003 Report Share Posted September 2, 2003 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? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 2, 2003 Report Share Posted September 2, 2003 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 3, 2003 Report Share Posted September 3, 2003 > 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 3, 2003 Report Share Posted September 3, 2003 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 3, 2003 Report Share Posted September 3, 2003 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 3, 2003 Report Share Posted September 3, 2003 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.