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

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sunderji.

 

Yes. I agree with you that tEjas as the third step in `evolution'

would apply to the congenitally blind. I don't want to embark on a

grammar misadventure on the meaning of `tEjas' as I did in the case

of `prakAshA'. However, we have to admit that `tEjas', like

prakAshA, has a wider amplitude and deeper subtlety than its gross

manifestation called agni (fire). Besides, light is just one of the

two qualities of fire. The other, heat, caters to the sense of touch

and is very much available to the blind.

 

In our current debate, we also have to take into consideration the

wildest supposition of creation taking place in unknown domains with

more or less number of the elements (bhUtAs) known to us or even an

altogether different set of them presenting a different set of

stimuli. (Am I straying into the forbidden land of heresy here?).

 

Also, we need to overlook our firmly held beliefs about acEtana (or

nishcEtana?) beings existing around us. I am here reminded of an SF

novel by Sir Fred Hoyle [of the steady-state (Hoyle-Narlikar) theory

of the universe fame]. The book "The Black Cloud" has a large cloud

of matter, much more advanced in intelligence than humans,

approaching the earth. (See:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0899683444/103-1488616-

2420619?v=glance).

 

It is a very very wild idea . Yet, I cannot help wondering about the

possible ways Consciousness can work. Are the Himalayas brooding

silently utterly scornful of our deeds at their very feet? How are

we to know?

 

Now to things personal. Something strange happens to me while I

meditate. The attention wanders to certain parts of the body

probably because of muscular relaxation or tension in those areas –

particularly the knees, thighs, feet, abdomen and forehead. Then all

of a sudden, the appreciation of muscular tactility in those areas

converts itself into visual pictures – like my abdomen becomes a

mountain side, the knee a rock washed by a passing stream, the

numbness on the feet a mass of electric brilliance and so son. This,

I am sure, should be happening to others too in different ways and

measures. I am highlighting this just to drive home the point that

sensory stimuli are interconnected at subtler levels although we

always put them in water-tight compartments in the gross. At a

deeper level, therefore, they may all be existing in a very

overlapped manner indistinguishable from one another.

 

Let us now take the case of sound. My eyes are closed and I hear a

sound. Although, technically, it is a stimulus falling on the

eardrum, the mind immediately conjures up a vision – like if the

sound is the tick of a clock – a clock appears on the mental screen.

It may be an altogether different clock than the one which is

actually ticking. Am I then hearing a sound or seeing a vision or

doing both?

 

The world we experience is thus a mass presented by inter-connected

sensory appreciation. It is never one stimulus alone. We, being so

very much predominantly influenced by the stimulus called light,

conjures up immediate visions? Will a congenitally blind person do

that? Yet, he could possibly have an inner `vision' (I have no other

word for it! See how chauvinistic the non-blind me can be!) for a

sound he hears or a tactility he experiences. We cannot guess the

nature of that vision. It is simply beyond us although we are sure

that, as a sachEtanA being, he has an inner world like us, the fabric

of which is beyond our understanding. The subtlety behind fire

(tEjas), which does't fully blossom outwardly in the blind, is very

much existent there lending a specific quality to his

inner `vision'. Nevertheless, don't you think we would do better by

not christening it light which, in the gross form we know it, is

unavailable to him.

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

_____________________

 

advaitin, "Sunder Hattangadi" <sunderh>

wrote:

> Regarding Nairji's references to congenitally blind persons,

> the Panchamahabhutas (5 great/subtle elements - constituents of

> Srishti) include Tejas as the 3rd step in the 'evolution' , and it

> definitely would not be different for them. Fire is the 'gross'

> representation of Tejas.

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "Madathil Rajendran Nair"

<madathilnair> wrote:

It is simply beyond us although we are sure

> that, as a sachEtanA being, he has an inner world like us, the fabric

> of which is beyond our understanding. The subtlety behind fire

> (tEjas), which does't fully blossom outwardly in the blind, is very

> much existent there lending a specific quality to his

> inner `vision'. Nevertheless, don't you think we would do better by

> not christening it light which, in the gross form we know it, is

> unavailable to him.

 

Namaste Madathilji,

 

Even granting all the suppositions of other worlds, etc. a

congenitally blind person in this world must have lived previous lives

when the faculty of sight was intact. If spiritual maturity had been

acquired over the course of such lives, such sanskaras and vasanas are

bound to be associated with this body, and 'visualization' could not

be ruled out.

 

Surdas, one of the greatest poet-saints (said to have been

congenitally blind)of Hindi literature, could describe Krishna Lila

which a person with sight would envy. Of course, he had the grace of

Vallabhacharya.

 

 

Regards,

 

Sunder

[Guest guest]

Namaste all,

A quick quote as we are about to be invaded by

visitors:

 

I have before me a favourite LP: 'The Bauls of

Bengal'. The LP notes include these words of a Baul

song:

'I am blind, I cannot see the darkness.'

 

A favourite quote for the last thirty five years, and

music to listen to when the heart needs to open.

 

Many thanks Sunder for Wilson ref. I have downloaded

most of that site. By the way, have I referred you to

this site before: http://flaez.ch/rv

Very helpful site.

 

Many thanks

 

ken Knight

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

advaitin, ken knight <hilken_98@Y...> wrote:

> Wilson ref.

By the way, have I referred you to

> this site before: http://flaez.ch/rv

> Very helpful site.

 

Namaste Ken,

 

Yes, thank you. For some strange reason, the URL without the

'rv' works better!

 

http://flaez.ch/ then proceed to the RigVeda.

 

Regards,

 

Sunder

[Guest guest]

Namaste.

 

Thanks Sunderji for bringing in Surdas. We need to think about it.

Yes. The blind are perhaps not what we take them to be. Can you

please look for some research material on the subject so that we can

have a better picture? I had found some reference before but don't

remember where. Perhaps, somebody touched upon this topic on our

list.

 

Kenji, your song of the blind will be melodious even to the deaf. It

definitely has a big message for the deaf and blind in me. Thanks.

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "Madathil Rajendran Nair"

<madathilnair> wrote:

 

> Surdas. We need to think about it.

> Yes. The blind are perhaps not what we take them to be. Can you

> please look for some research material on the subject so that we can

> have a better picture?

 

 

Namaste,

 

Here are a few sites:

 

http://www.veddham.org/saint_surdas_saint_series.htm

 

http://www.itihaas.com/medieval/surdas.html

 

http://www.indiayogi.com/content/indsaints/surdas.asp

 

http://www.musicindiaonline.com/music/l/02000I0101 [audio]

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "Madathil Rajendran Nair"

<madathilnair> wrote:

> Namaste.

>

> Thanks Sunderji for bringing in Surdas. We need to think about

it.

> Yes. The blind are perhaps not what we take them to be. Can you

> please look for some research material on the subject so that we

can

> have a better picture? >

> Madathil Nair

 

Namaste.

I stumbled upon the following sonnet of Shakespeare just now. What

does it tell us about 'the sight of the blind' is not clear to me.

But it seems to be relevant and interesting. Note line 8 and line 10.

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

Shakespeare's Sonnet 27.

The Soul's Imaginary sight.

 

Weary with toil, I haste to my bed,

The dear repose for limbs with travel tired;

But then begins a journey in my head,

To work my mind, when body's work's expired;

For then my thoughts, from far where I abide,

Intend a Zealous pilgrimage to thee,

And keep my drooping eyelids open wide,

Looking on darkness which the blind do see

Save that my soul's imaginary sight

Presents thy shadow to my sightless view,

Which, like a jewel hung in ghastly night,

Makes black night beauteous, and her old face new.

Lo, thus, by day my limbs, by night my mind,

For thee and for myself no quiet find.

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

 

PranAms to all advaitins

profvk

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "Madathil Rajendran Nair"

<madathilnair> wrote:

 

some research material on the subject so that we can

> have a better picture?

 

Namaste,

 

Some modern views on the issue: (blindness, dreaming, &c.)

 

http://www.seeingwithsound.com/imagery.htm

 

http://www.unsolvedmysteries.com/usm272448.html

 

http://www.rommes.org/blind/dreams.html

 

http://www.dreamgate.com/dream/articles_rcw/ed2-1bli.htm

 

It is of interest tha 'synesthesia', mentioned in one of

the articles, is a striking phenomenon in spiritual sadhana.

 

Regards,

 

Sunder

[Guest guest]

Namaste Prof. Krishnamurthyji.

 

A bunch of daffodils from Wordsworth right on this Onam* morn to all

Advaitins and to you especially for the Shakespaere quote:

 

"For oft, when on my couch I lie

In vacant or in pensive mood,

They flash upon that inward eye

Which is the bliss of solitude;

And then my heart with pleasure fills,

And dances with the daffodils."

 

The bard, in your quote, seems to decry the usual belief that the

blind see only darkness, as he does his pilgrimage in utter darkness

to behold the JEWEL that makes the ghastly night of our miseries

bright. Since the JEWEL is beheld in viewlessness, we have to assume

that it is done with the internal eye which the blind too do possess.

The "no quiet find" at the end might point at our restless quest day

and night for happiness - i.e. ourselves.

 

(If the Advaitin in me has raised his head obtrusively in this

understanding, please bear with it for the sake of the goals of this

Forum.)

 

HAPPY ONAM* TO EVERYONE ONCE AGAIN.

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

 

(* For those who do not know - Onam is the harvest festival of Kerala

where I hail from.)

_______________________________

 

advaitin, "V. Krishnamurthy" <profvk>

wrote:

> I stumbled upon the following sonnet of Shakespeare just now. What

> does it tell us about 'the sight of the blind' is not clear to me.

> But it seems to be relevant and interesting. Note line 8 and line

10.

> -------------------------------

> Shakespeare's Sonnet 27.

> The Soul's Imaginary sight.

>

> Weary with toil, I haste to my bed,

> The dear repose for limbs with travel tired;

> But then begins a journey in my head,

> To work my mind, when body's work's expired;

> For then my thoughts, from far where I abide,

> Intend a Zealous pilgrimage to thee,

> And keep my drooping eyelids open wide,

> Looking on darkness which the blind do see

> Save that my soul's imaginary sight

> Presents thy shadow to my sightless view,

> Which, like a jewel hung in ghastly night,

> Makes black night beauteous, and her old face new.

> Lo, thus, by day my limbs, by night my mind,

> For thee and for myself no quiet find.

> ------------------------

[Guest guest]

Namaste all.

 

I had mentioned before that I would be quoting my electronic dialogue

with my elder brother, Shri Narendran. The same is given below in

three parts with the permission of the List Administrator. It is a

little long. Request your patience. Grateful for your views in order

to build further on this lively discussion.

 

PraNAms to all advaitins.

 

Madathil Nair

_____________________________

 

PART 1

 

Narendran:

 

1. What is the definition for "enlightenment"? Is it just the

individual's personal experiences during meditation? I feel

enlightenment should cover all activities in which the individual

engages including meditation. If so, how does one experience the

light? If so, what is the significance of the term "light"?

Therefore, before embarking on a serious discussion on this subject

we need to define both the terms "light" and" enlightenment".

 

Madathil:

 

I said I meant self-realization by enlightenment. It cannot be

defined because it is an 'area' where descriptions and definitions

fear to tread. Self-realization, in true advaitic sense, cannot be

objectified although we labour interminably and in vain in our

vyAvaharikA with inadequate descriptions and definitions in order to

make people understand.

 

Narendran:

 

2. The word light is used in English both as noun and adjective.

As a noun it has the meaning you intended in your essay,

but as an adjective it is used as opposite to "heavy". Therefore, is

it not possible to think of a different meaning to enlightenment

using light as adjective. If so how does one enlighten oneself?

What is the burden that he has to foresake? Going by the scriptures

the burden that the individual soul carries is the personal ego, the

sacrifice of which lightens oneself beyond the experience of a

worldly person, difficult to express in words.

 

Madathil:

 

But, in self-realization, if you look at it

logically, there cannot be any feeling that one

unburdened oneself. Isn't such a feeling in the realm

of the objectified? Self-realization is the end of

objectification. It is 'realizing' that one never had

an ego and, as you pointed out, difficult to express

in words.

 

Narendran:

 

3. Such an enlightened person having sacrificed his personal ego is

ever in unison with the cosmic Self (or Paramaatma as termed

in the scriptures) and what would be his experiences like?

 

Madathil:

 

Logically, there cannot be experiences!

 

 

Narendran:

 

4. Let us examine what is meant by the term cosmic Self. As all

Advaitins believe matter emerged from consciousness and not vice

versa as modern scientists believe. It is, of course, absurd to

think that dead matter can evolve by itself to a conscious being. If

so, consciousness ever exists, because nothing else can produce it.

Since the entire universe is its creation, anything in the universe

cannot destroy it as well. As such, consciousness creates, sustains

and destroys the universe at its free will. What is free will? Free

will is the power that controls all activities of the consciousness,

viz. creation, sustenance and destruction of the universe - the term

that is termed as Isvara in the scriptures. What is the activity of

consciousness? The activity of consciousness is sankalpa - the term

that is termed as Maya in the scriptures. Therefore, the free will

creates, sustains and destroys all the activities through sankalpa.

We can, therefore, sum up that other than the trinity of

consciousness, free will and its power of sankalpa, everything else

is unreal, as the products of sankalpa are dreamlike.

 

Madathil:

 

This is the tricky part. No activity can be ascribed

to Consciousness (Bhagwat Geetha Chapter 9). It is

only from the viewpoint of the deluded that

Consciousness seems to project. Soundarya Lahari,

which we are currently discussing at Advaitin, begins

with Shiva-ShaktyA yuktO, and LalitA SahasranAmAvali

ends with Shiva-Shaktyaikya SwarUpini. These two

terms, in ultimate analysis, mean that Shiva and

Shakti are one and the same. From that point of view,

there actually is no creation taking place. So,

creation and duality exist only for the deluded. That

the deluded himself is Shiva and Shakti at the same

time is self-realization and it cannot be a

realization in the pedestrian sense. We use the verb

'realize' just because we are in the grip of

vyAvahArikA delusion. Once freed from it, there

cannot be any creation and there cannot be any

'memory' of the previous error, because memories again

belong to the realm of the objectified. There is only

silence. No wonder then that jnAna is known as

Silence. One is then everything without

compartmentalization. That is just another way of

saying 'being One without a second and any beyonds' -

the advaitic fullness.

 

Mother is called samayAntastA and gaganAntastA, by

which names it is implied that She pervades

space-time continuum (the building block of delusion)

from within. At self-realization, the realized one

verily becomes both space and time (and for that

matter all objectified phenomena) without any

differentiation between them and, for him, both are no

more objective phenomena. In fact, they never had

been!

 

Narendran:

 

5. How is the individual soul different from Isvara? Individual

soul (though the part of the same consciousness as Isvara) is so much

tied up with products of sankalpas, the producer of ego, that it has

lost all its memories of free will (its father), Isvara's sankalpa

sakthi (its mother) or the pure consciousness (its Guru. What is

ego? Ego is nothing but false sankalpas about self. Therefore, the

purpose of meditation is to clean up one's consciousness of the

effect of past sankalpas so that little by little one comes to

experience his/her free will. Again by not allowing the free will to

play with sankalpas and meditating on its true form of pure

consciousness the saadhaka regains the lost free will and becomes one

with the bliss of the pure consciousness - swaswaroopanusandhaanam (a

synonym for Bhakti) as defined by Adi Sankara in Vivekachudamani.

The non-duality which the Advaitin understands is that the trinity of

consciousness, free will and sankalpa is actually one and without a

second. These are three for the saadhaka, but one for the siddha.

Having attained unity with the Paramaatma through consistent efforts

(abhyaasa), a saadhaka learns not to lose sight of the reality during

the three states of Jaagrat, Svapna & Sushupti as well. Only such a

person can be considered enlightened. How can one describe a person

who becomes one with this true state of self and ever experiences the

pure consciousness, except by the term enlightened? What else but

light describes the consciousness best? Can anyone associate

consciousness with darkness. Is not the consciousness, the inner

light of every being?

 

Madathil:

 

No objections here about swarUpa-anusandhAnam and the

need for abhyAsa. I accept that part fully. The point

I was trying to drive home is association of light

(the noun) with all this in order to sift fancy away

from facts. That was why I thought aloud about the

possible existence of other beings who don't have to

deal with the visual stimulus. If they exist, then in

their abhyAsa, there won't be any place for light.

Another external stimulus, as granted to them by

Ishwara, will substitute light. Your 'inner light'

will then be another 'inner external stumulus' for

those beings. Do we, therefore, have to be

chauvinistic about 'light' - the main external

stimulus available to us? If the 'inner light' is

known as jnAna, then I have no objections. That is a

matter of mere linguistics.

 

Narendran:

 

6. To sum up, I feel there is light in enlightenment in both the

senses of the word light - i.e. noun as well as adjective. But the

term light is to be understood to mean the inner light of pure

consciousness.

 

 

Madathil:

 

Well. I said above there cannot be any 'feeling' of

a removal of burden in self-realization as that

'state' (sorry for the word) is not within the

objectified. This applies to light also as long as it

is not used to represent jnAna. JnAnA refers to the

'state' itself because the jnAni becomes verily

Knowledge without the division of knower, knowing and

known.

 

Narendran:

 

I did not really understand the difficulty in answering your

daughter's question? "Aren't there worlds which are completely dark

without light?" Yes, if Isvara wills there could be worlds of any

kind. But understand these worlds are only creations of sankalpas

and exists only in the consciousness of Isvara, and at will can be

brightened up. Consciousness cannot be associated with darkness in

anyway.

 

Madathil:

 

I have answered this under 6 above.

 

 

PART 2

 

Narendran:

 

Thank you for your prompt comments and for the invitation to take

Advaitin membership. I agree with you that non-duality cannot be

objectified. Is it not the reason why Dakshinaamoorthy sits silent

explaining the state through chinmudra. But why we write about it

and try to explain it is to make it understandable to people who have

only "experiences" and not anything beyond it. Such explanation can

be done only within the limitations of language and in relation to

their experiences. The reason why I do not want to join any group is

because I think contemplation (within oneself) rather than

discussions, where ego crops up often without one's knowledge, would

help me to get the knowledge I am seeking. I do not profess to know

much on the subject and I am still a vidhyaarthi (or for that matter

a lazy vidhaarthi). But I prefer to listen to my internal Guru rather

than those outside. In a way you may even interpret it as my ego

blocking me from discussion because it does not want to get hurt.

 

I am a person who is bound with Maya (i.e sankalpas) and the only way

I can express myself is through Sankalpas. I am sure that you will

agree that the question whether there is light in enligtenment itself

is a product of Maya. We are presuming that there is a 'state' (or

whatever name you may call it) called enlightenment, and within that

state there is something called 'light'. In a world without sankalpa,

what meaning does this question have?

 

It is also true that in enlightenment there is no feeling of

unburdenment. But how does a man burdened with ego look at it? As a

ligtened state, is it not? Well that is why me, who is a person

burdened with ego likes to call the jnaani enlightened.

 

I agree with you when you say that there should be no fancies about

enlightenment? I also agree that enlightenment and self-realization

are same. Enlightenment or self-realization cannot be expressed in

words. But if you ask me to explain these terms I would only refer

you to the lakshanaas of "Sthithaprajna", "Jnaani" and "Bhakta" so

beautifully described in Srimad Bhagavad Geetha.

 

Sorry if I have attributed any activities to the Paramaatma. I will

not go against Geetha in this respect. But as we all know that this

magical universe has as its source, Paramaatma. Paramaatma though is

nirvikaara & nishkarma, it does awaken its Mayasakhti (through

Chilleela, to go by its Bhagavatic term) which then gives birth to

all the non-existent actions, non-actions, experiences and everything

in the universe. Scriptures also say that all these activities take

place under the control of Isvara.

 

 

Therefore to the uninitiated it would be difficult to explain what it

is to be without any activity, say not even sankalpas. Chances are

that such a person would easily confuse it with death, which is a

state without consciousness, whereas samaadhi is where

consciousness "shines" with its full glory. The light which is

referred to here is that inner light which is not the object, but

self itself. It may sound a little outspoken, but to me "Aham

Brahmaasmi" means "I am consciousness" or "I am the inner light". The

self is nothing but consciousness which pervades all beings. I

interpret the word Brahma as cosmic consciousness. Once again, I

agree that Brahma is a word that transcends definition. But my

interpretation of it is only to make myself understand the word at

least in its partial sense.

 

Madathil:

 

That is just wonderful! I accept it fully. In fact,

the purpose of the discussion is to bring out this

conclusion in words which again is in the realm of

mAya.

 

I would be quoting you at Advaitin.

 

 

PART 3:

 

Narendran:

 

Here are some more thoughts on "Enlightenment" which

crossed my mind this morning.

 

As Vedas are the Pramaana for Advaitins of Sankara

School, I thought it might be helpful analyzing

"Enlightenment" in the light of Vedasirsha, the four

Mahaavaakyas of the four Vedas. I am sure that you

will agree with me if I say that there is nothing more

authoritative than the four Mahaavaakyas in

explaining the ultimate truth, the realization of

which is "Enlightenment". Let us take these one by

one and examine how they proceed to enlighten one.

 

Prajnaanam Brahma, Aham Brahmaasmi, Tat Tvamasi &

Ayam Aatma Brahma being the four we have to analyse.

 

In the first of the above Prajnaanam Brahma you will

note that there is no mention about the aham or

Self. The Mahaavakya totally appears to be

objective and dealing with outside element.

Explaining Brahma, the Ultimate Reality, as

Prajnaanam a combination of Prajna and Jnaanam (in

English it would be equal to a combination of

awareness, consciousness and knowledge). This

Mahavaakya, though not directly referring to self,

implies that the ultimate truth is nothing material

and can be attained only through awareness,

consciousness and knowledge all three being

attributes of the Self. Another quotation, though

not a Mahaavaakya Brahmavith Brahmo Bhavathi also

states that the way to become Brahma is knowing

Brahma. Therefore, the Mahavaakya helps one turn

inward and look for the ultimate truth within - the

first essential for the saadhaka.

 

The second of the Mahavaakyas, Aham Brahmaasmi makes

the saadhaka realize that the ultimate truth is

himself. This happens when one realizes that self

is nothing but awareness, consciousness and

knowledge, as without these one is nothing. Contact

with outside universe is possible only through

Prajnaanam. In other words, the universe exists

only in Prajnaanam. If not for Prajnaanam, there

is no universe for any being. This knowledge makes

the person immortal coming to know that Prajnaanam

has no past, present or future - it is a continuum

without beginning, middle or end. This is the

beginning of Enlightenment. When this identity is

complete, one wishes to make this knowledge known to

others who are earnestly seeking the ultimate

reality. The only way this new knowledge can be

expressed is through the third of the Mahaavaakyas,

i.e. Tat Tvamasi.

 

Tat Tvamasi being the Mahaavaakya this is studied,

analyzed and discussed most by Vedaantins of all

schools, I do not think there is any need to

explain the meaning of this Mahaavaakya here.

When one makes this known to a disciple who

understands and realizes the Guru's statement in

its true sense we have a Guru Parampara, that in

time branches out to several schools of Vedantaas

which explains the same truth, but in different

worldly lights.

 

Having completed the Guru's worldly duty of sharing

the knowledge with the contemporaries, it becomes

necessary to redefine the statement once again lest

its true meaning be not limited to the Guru and

Sishya only. Thus rises the forth of the

Mahavaakyaas "Ayam Aatma Brahma", the Mahaavakya

expanding to embrace all beings, whose inner light

is the same as the Guru and Sishya. The difference

between the enlightened and non-enlightened

therefore is only the realization or absence of this

knowledge, the ultimate truth being all-pervading.

 

All that is good in this world, universal love,

universal brotherhood, samabhaavana, bhakti (the

glorification of eternal truth) etc. springs from

this knowledge. The light is a symbol of this

knowledge - hence the term enlightened.

 

I was keeping away from expressing myself to others

basically I think all that is to be said has

already been told by many others much more

beautifully than I can do and it would be

superfluous of me (with half knowledge) to speak out

where I am not called.

 

Anyway, your views on enlightenment have woken up

the philosopher (I hope not pseudo) and have

compelled me to share my views with you and some

others.

 

Madathil:

 

I have no disagreement. What I have to say below is

then only an unnecessary addendum!

 

The mahavakyas represent the lofty heights of vedanta

and the ultimate pramana advaitins go by. They are

all one, in fact, like the three - Sat, Chit and

Ananda - are verily One. The duality of four is just

for the intellect to appreciate and understand them

from different angles. Any such understanding is

still outside self-realization.

 

The purpose of our discussion, as I said

several times before, is to sift fancy away from

facts. Pramanas are the facts and reading wrong

iterpretations into them by alluding to our ordinary

mundane stimuli like light, sound (as it happens in a

vision of the deity etc.) is fancy. I am not decrying

visions. They are all a blessing in disguise en route

self-realization. Only that we should not get

enmeshed in their dalliance and misunderstand

self-realization.

 

To an aspirant, the mahavakyas are still in the realm

of the objectified - statements that are appreciated

and understood. When he or she becomes verily the

object represented by them, he or she ceases to be.

There is then no object any more.

 

The feeling then that a realized guru teaches him/her

is also a delusion. It is a projection created by the

aspirant's intense sadhana or earnest wish. The guru

is none other than he/she himself/herself. When he or

she becomes the Truth, there is no more any knowing in

the pedestrian sense.

 

Then the noun Knowledge replaces knowing, knower and

known. There are no more any adjectives, verbs and

adverbs. There are only nouns which is all One and

the Same, like Sat, Chit and Ananda. And that

Knowledge is Brahman, verily the erstwhile aspirant

and Prajnanam too. That is when Tat and Twam fuses

together without any beyonds or duality. There cannot

be any light or sound left then in the oridnary sense

because both light and sound are then the aspirant

without distinctions. It applies to the whole

erstwhile experienced universe too without any need

for the universe to be refuted.

 

Thanks for your input.

 

____

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sunderji.

 

I am sure my reference to the visual substituting tactile led you to

the synesthesia links.

 

There is an awful lot of material on the net on this subject, which

are beyond my competence and means to dwell on in detail. The

neuropsychological aspect of the phenomenon is just awesome.

 

Synesthesia is understood as a *condition* in which people have

*difficulty* distinguishing between various sensory inputs (asterisks

mine to highlight how science looks at the subject!)

 

I don't know for sure how many of us experience synesthesia (of the

beneficial variety) in meditation. However, after glancing through

your links and results of my net search, I am tempted to believe that

most successful kundalinsts are subject to synesthesia in as much as

the tactile (muscular tension or relaxation) is substituted in them

by the visual (blazing charkas).

 

It is said about neonatal synesthesia that, early in infancy,

probably upto about four months of age, all babies experience sensory

input in an undifferentiated way. The big question then to be asked

is if we are `regressing' into a state of childhood innocence through

spiritual sAdhana and resultant chittasuddhi whereby the distinct

differentiation of sensory stimuli (credited to evolution!) merges

back into a brilliant mass of Unity where all senses exist together.

Then, no doubt, there is some sense in the talk of light in

Enlightenment. Of course, that light then cannot be light alone but a

nucleus of total sensorial activity wherefrom the universe of

diversity blossoms forth through the mind and sense organs.

 

As an aside, it is also my personal experience that a feeling often

occurs that we see without the eyes and hear without the ears. Let

me put in more words to explain. I am up from the morning and

engaged in different activities. During all this time, I didn't give

any thought to the existence of my body and eyes and yet operated

smoothly. Only when attention is called to the body or eyes that I

am aware that I have a body and eyes and, then, all the explanations

follow – about the working of the body, brain, the mechanics of

seeing such as light falling on the retina, neuronal transmission of

information to the brain etc. etc. Aren't all these additional

inputs that I `invent' to explain duality granting it a validity that

it doesn't really deserve? In spiritual sAdhanA, our endeavour is to

refrain from such dualistic thinking and fall back on the Unity

behind it by reminding ourselves: "CONSCIOUSNESS I AM". It is an

endeavour to understand the upanishidic eye that sees the eyes and

the ear that hears the ears. Sensory perception of objective

phenomena, therefore, should take place without the intermediacy of

sense organs unless we are direly in need of them. Is this

understanding or realization an inevitable element en-route

the `regression' to the original state that I tried to elaborate

above with the help of synesthesia?

 

I would be most grateful for thoughtful insights from all. However,

kindly do not read any allusion of spiritual accomplishment or claims

on my part in what I have written above. It is sheer loud thinking.

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

 

__________________________

 

advaitin, "Sunder Hattangadi" <sunderh>

wrote:

>

> It is of interest tha 'synesthesia', mentioned in one of

> the articles, is a striking phenomenon in spiritual sadhana.

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "Madathil Rajendran Nair"

<madathilnair> wrote:

>

> I am sure my reference to the visual substituting tactile led you to

> the synesthesia links.

The big question then to be asked

> is if we are `regressing' into a state of childhood innocence through

> spiritual sAdhana and resultant chittasuddhi whereby the distinct

> differentiation of sensory stimuli (credited to evolution!) merges

> back into a brilliant mass of Unity where all senses exist together.

> Then, no doubt, there is some sense in the talk of light in

> Enlightenment. Of course, that light then cannot be light alone but a

> nucleus of total sensorial activity wherefrom the universe of

> diversity blossoms forth through the mind and sense organs.

>

Aren't all these additional

> inputs that I `invent' to explain duality granting it a validity that

> it doesn't really deserve? In spiritual sAdhanA, our endeavour is to

> refrain from such dualistic thinking and fall back on the Unity

> behind it by reminding ourselves: "CONSCIOUSNESS I AM". It is an

> endeavour to understand the upanishidic eye that sees the eyes and

> the ear that hears the ears. Sensory perception of objective

> phenomena, therefore, should take place without the intermediacy of

> sense organs unless we are direly in need of them. Is this

> understanding or realization an inevitable element en-route

> the `regression' to the original state that I tried to elaborate

> above with the help of synesthesia?

 

Namaste,

 

Actually the key search words I used were : congenital

blindness and dreaming; synesthesia was a reference in one of the

articles, and I made an incidental mention of it.

 

The word 'regression' is properly in quotation marks, because

in a biological or psychological sense it indicates a less advanced or

adaptive state of existence! We may have to coin a different word

(or one may already exist that I am not aware of) to describe this

spritual 'progress'.

 

Re: the remark on the perception without intermediacy of sense

organs, it in fact occurs in the dream state (in the sukshma or subtle

body). Unfortunately, few retain the capacity to analyse this state

in dreams, and only in the waking state we are able to make the effort

to comprehend the 'Unity' ('advaita').

 

The synesthesia in regression, whether induced by hypnosis or

hallucinogenic drugs, may superficially resemble or mimic that in

enlightenment, but cannot be identical - if judged by the

post-regression behavior.

 

When Mandukya upanishad defines sushupti (deep sleep) as

"...yatra...na kanchana svapnam pashyati...", I think it does not

limit itself to the visual organ. It must include all senses. Also,

one of the many meanings of the verb 'pash' is 'to understand;

experience; learn,' etc.

 

In regard to the hypothesis of other worlds where 'darkness'

(by our definition) and duality rule, there still would a word for

knowing reality, though it may not be 'enlightenment'! In fact, are

not the words, hell, naraka, 'asuric', etc. descriptive of precisely

this 'dark' dimension?

 

Shankara has composed the poem Kashi Panchakam, where he says:

 

kosheshhu paJNchasvadhiraajamaanaa

buddhirbhavaanii pratidehageham.h .

saakshii shivaH sarvagato.antaraatmaa

saa kaashikaaha.n nijabodharuupaa .. 3..

 

"...whose sway extends over the five sheaths (koshas), whare Buddhi is

Bhavani, woth Her abode in every human body, where the all-pervading

Inner-Self, the Witnes, is Shiva - I am that Kashika, of the form of

pure consciousness of Self".

 

kaashyaa.n hi kaashyate kaashii kaashii sarvaprakaashikaa .

saa kaashii viditaa yena tena praaptaa hi kaashikaa .. 4..

 

"In Kashi, indeed, shines the effulgent one, Kashi (Self) is the

bringer of everything in the universe to light. He who has known that

Kashi has indeed attained Kashi (salvatio)."

 

[Publ. Sw. Buddhananda, Advaita Ashrama, Mayavati]

 

 

 

Regards,

 

Sunder

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sunderji.

 

`Pash' or `Kash', we seem to be gravitating towards the conclusion

that the light of Englightenment, as far as we terrestrial Homo

sapiens are concerned, cannot be attributed to any particular

stimulus. We have already arrived in KashI, therefore.

 

Thanks for the quote from kAshIpanchaka. If I may bring you and Shri

Ananda Wood together here, isn't the kAsh of kAshAyA, kAshika and

kAshi the same as in prAkAshA? All the more reason, therefore, to

understand that prAkAshA is not mere light relating to one sense

organ.

 

What a beautiful statement : kAshI sarva prakAshikA (Self is the

bringer of everything to light!). It indeed is a verse where the

subtlety in words is sublimed to the highest possible level for

unending interpretation and contemplation. No wonder, therefore, the

kAshikA's attire is called kAshAya. What a symbolism! How silly we

are to mistake it for the particular colour of sanyAsis' attire when

it actually means the `prakAshA' the self is `clothed' in!

 

Regarding your reference to perception without the intermediacy of

sense organs in dream state, I have always had problem coming to

grips with MandUkya and GaudapAdA's kArika. In an ordinary human

being, aren't still senses in operation in the dream state? Let us

take an example: the dreamer can have an eye or ear pain in dream

state whereas such complaints are non-existent when he is awake.

Which ear or eye has the ache? The answer definitely is dream ear or

eye of the dreamer, isn't it? Isn't it with that ear and eye dream

music is enjoyed and dream scenes are seen? Then, we have to

conclude that even in dream state the intermediacy of the dream sense

organs operates. Am I right?

>From personal experience, I find that advaitic analysis occurs even

in dream state, perhaps, with more clarity than in waking. In

certain situations, which science normally attributes to motor

paralysis in day-time sleep and partial reception of external

stimuli, I become aware of myself as a mass of resonating brilliance

with continuous ringing in the head. This is the description of only

one such experience. The realization that I am asleep then dawns

with an urge to wake up but I cannot wake up. This is a condition of

great levity and often, of late, I deliberately attempt to enjoy the

levity by taking to flying. Sometimes, I call out to AmbAl for help

who then appears in all her brilliance with the result that I either

wake up or pass into another dream to repeat the entire process all

over again. This is the time advaitic thoughts overcrowd the mind

and scriptural texts and hymns are remembered and understood with

greater clarity than in wakefulness.

 

I should, therefore, assume that dreams or dreamlike experiences are

a great help in spiritual progress. There of course is an inability

in wakefulness to recapture the advaitic insights and thoughts that

occur in dreams in their entirety. However, dreams being an

expression of the subconscious, I should imagine that the `richer'

advaitic wisdom of dreams is still available somewhere there in

an `underground' storehouse to derive inspiration from in wakefulness.

 

Grateful for the thoughts of all Advaitins.

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

___________________

 

advaitin, "Sunder Hattangadi" <sunderh>

wrote:

> Re: the remark on the perception without intermediacy of

sense

> organs, it in fact occurs in the dream state (in the sukshma or

subtle

> body). Unfortunately, few retain the capacity to analyse this state

> in dreams, and only in the waking state we are able to make the

effort

> to comprehend the 'Unity' ('advaita').

>

>

> When Mandukya upanishad defines sushupti (deep sleep) as

> "...yatra...na kanchana svapnam pashyati...", I think it does not

> limit itself to the visual organ. It must include all senses. Also,

> one of the many meanings of the verb 'pash' is 'to understand;

> experience; learn,' etc.

>

>

> Shankara has composed the poem Kashi Panchakam, where he

says:

>

> kosheshhu paJNchasvadhiraajamaanaa

> buddhirbhavaanii pratidehageham.h .

> saakshii shivaH sarvagato.antaraatmaa

> saa kaashikaaha.n nijabodharuupaa .. 3..

>

> "...whose sway extends over the five sheaths (koshas), whare Buddhi

is

> Bhavani, woth Her abode in every human body, where the all-pervading

> Inner-Self, the Witnes, is Shiva - I am that Kashika, of the form of

> pure consciousness of Self".

>

> kaashyaa.n hi kaashyate kaashii kaashii sarvaprakaashikaa .

> saa kaashii viditaa yena tena praaptaa hi kaashikaa .. 4..

>

> "In Kashi, indeed, shines the effulgent one, Kashi (Self) is the

> bringer of everything in the universe to light. He who has known

that

> Kashi has indeed attained Kashi (salvatio)."

>

> [Publ. Sw. Buddhananda, Advaita Ashrama,

Mayavati]

[Guest guest]

Namaste all.

 

Reference the several parameters set in my lead post of 1st September.

 

I notice that the following departments of this debate need your kind

attention as very little or no inputs relating to them have yet been

received:

 

(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.)

 

(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.

 

Those who have so far participated constitute only a small percentage

of our Membership. May I, therefore, invite greater participation

with thoughtful insights on the above areas which have not been

covered.

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

[Guest guest]

Just a note about the way that people blind from birth perceive the world,

since there has been a fair bit of discussion on this recently. In case

anyone wants to pursue the subject further, there is an excellent book on

the topic (Sight Unseen. Bryan Magee and Martin Milligan. Phoenix

Paperback, 1995. ISBN: 0-75380-503-0) which takes the form of an exchange of

letters between two philosophers, one who was effectively blind from birth.

Extremely interesting! I refer to it briefly in my book:

 

"Bryan Magee points out in (Ref. 65) that people blind from birth have no

experiential feeling of being deficient in their perception of 'reality'.

They do not

'know' the meaning of 'darkness' other than as a concept relating to a

decreased

ability to perceive something owing to external conditions. All of us are

deficient in

a multitude of ways. If we had the sonar capability of bats, we would

function

much better in the dark and so on. We do not feel ourselves to be inferior

because of

this but, most importantly for this discussion, we do not realise that the

lack of

such senses must mean that there are an infinite number of ways in which we

are

failing to perceive other aspects of 'reality'."

 

Best wishes,

 

Dennis

[Guest guest]

Namaste Dennisji.

 

That is real enlightenment. The blind cannot have darkness, which

for us non-blind is an absence of light! How sadly we miss the

obvious! If the world were to be populated only by the blind, then

they would operate as efficienlty as the non-blind without the burden

of imagined inadequacies imposed on them. The bats should be

considering us deficient, who knows?

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

 

 

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

> "Bryan Magee points out in (Ref. 65) that people blind from birth

have no

> experiential feeling of being deficient in their perception

of 'reality'.

> They do not

> 'know' the meaning of 'darkness' other than as a concept relating

to a

> decreased

> ability to perceive something owing to external conditions. All of

us are

> deficient in

> a multitude of ways. If we had the sonar capability of bats, we

would

> function

> much better in the dark and so on. We do not feel ourselves to be

inferior

> because of

> this but, most importantly for this discussion, we do not realise

that the

> lack of

> such senses must mean that there are an infinite number of ways in

which we

> are

> failing to perceive other aspects of 'reality'."

[Guest guest]

Namaste all.

** About the topic "Is there "light" in Enlightenment?", Sri Madathil Rajen=

dran

Nair asked:

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

"I notice that the following departments of this debate need your kind

attention as very little or no inputs relating to them have yet been receiv=

ed:

 

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

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

  ** Very modestly, I bring here my own experience. I experienced frequent =

 

moments as steps towards self-realization. They were firm enough for giving=

 

to me a constant confidence in the Advaita. Then, in front of your question=

s,

was there "light" in the "Enlightenment"? For me, not at all.

 

** In these moments, there was no 'light', but the feeling of an Absolute

Presence. This presence existed amid a strong feeling both of personal soul=

 

and of relationship with all. It was neither only collective, nor only pers=

onal

(hence some of my preceding posts), but both. Light was not concerned.

 

** Concerning "light": I consider it as metaphorically, but precious for ot=

her

people, many of them more advanced than me. Indeed, if I were blind, it

would be possible to continue along the Path of Unity. But I admire also th=

is

sentence from a Swami (I alas forgot his name): "The Truth shines, whatever=

 

we attribute to it". "Shining" is probably here a metaphor, but a good one.=

My

poor feelings do not offer me 'Light' in Enlightenment. But I know that som=

e

people see it, and it helps the blinds. And, perhaps, this sentence is a

collateral answer to: "Is there 'Light' in the Enlightenment?". The words '=

light'

or 'shining' are both immanent and transcending themselves, like all partia=

l

but good, useful tools in Unity.

** Best regards to all Advaitins.

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

[Guest guest]

Namaste Madathhilji,

 

Responses in parentheses below:

 

 

 

advaitin, "Madathil Rajendran Nair"

<madathilnair> wrote:

> `Pash' or `Kash', we seem to be gravitating towards the conclusion

> that the light of Englightenment, as far as we terrestrial Homo

> sapiens are concerned, cannot be attributed to any particular

> stimulus. We have already arrived in KashI, therefore.

 

#####[ In Bhu Loka, existence without the Sun would be an

impossibilty,and the eye will have to function as the chief

intermediary sense. The importance of the Gayatri/Savitri is thus

incalculable.]

 

 

>

> Thanks for the quote from kAshIpanchaka. If I may bring you and Shri

> Ananda Wood together here, isn't the kAsh of kAshAyA, kAshika and

> kAshi the same as in prAkAshA? All the more reason, therefore, to

> understand that prAkAshA is not mere light relating to one sense

> organ.

 

#####[ Agree; but it certainly cannot exclude light. ]

>

> What a beautiful statement : kAshI sarva prakAshikA (Self is the

> bringer of everything to light!). It indeed is a verse where the

> subtlety in words is sublimed to the highest possible level for

> unending interpretation and contemplation. No wonder, therefore, the

> kAshikA's attire is called kAshAya. What a symbolism! How silly we

> are to mistake it for the particular colour of sanyAsis' attire when

> it actually means the `prakAshA' the self is `clothed' in!

 

######[ Very interesting point. Will have to do some research on the

history of this. ]

>

> Regarding your reference to perception without the intermediacy of

> sense organs in dream state, I have always had problem coming to

> grips with MandUkya and GaudapAdA's kArika. In an ordinary human

> being, aren't still senses in operation in the dream state? Let us

> take an example: the dreamer can have an eye or ear pain in dream

> state whereas such complaints are non-existent when he is awake.

> Which ear or eye has the ache? The answer definitely is dream ear or

> eye of the dreamer, isn't it? Isn't it with that ear and eye dream

> music is enjoyed and dream scenes are seen? Then, we have to

> conclude that even in dream state the intermediacy of the dream sense

> organs operates. Am I right?

 

#####[ This topic may need a separate thread! The subtle body operates

without the need for 'external' stimuli, and the jiva identifying

itself with the subtle body is called 'taijasa'. The enlightened

person does not identify with the gross body, so regards our 'waking'

state also as a long dream. ]

>

> From personal experience, I find that advaitic analysis occurs even

> in dream state, perhaps, with more clarity than in waking.

 

 

###### [ Agree. The dream state has to reflect what is in the waking

state also, but few have that intensity of purpose for this to occur,

or it may be that that particular individual has a different path

marked out. ]

 

 

 

Regards,

 

Sunder

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "Madathil Rajendran Nair"

<madathilnair> wrote:

> Namaste Dennisji.

>

> That is real enlightenment. The blind cannot have darkness, which

> for us non-blind is an absence of light! How sadly we miss the

> obvious! If the world were to be populated only by the blind, then

> they would operate as efficienlty as the non-blind without the burden

> of imagined inadequacies imposed on them. The bats should be

> considering us deficient, who knows?

 

Namaste,

 

We are far from understanding the way in which the brain parts

compensate for any particular 'deficit'. I had a friend who took the

most exquisite color photographs, and was admired and envied for his

art. It was years later that he casually remarked that he was

'color-blind'!! (of course since birth!). I have not met anyone yet

who is 'tone-deaf' and yet an accomplished musician. Of course, such

persons do appreciate good music, how we cannot say!

 

For the spiritually mature, the Spirit provides for them, no

matter what 'deficit' they may have to endure.

 

Regards,

 

Sunder

[Guest guest]

Namaste!

 

Sri Nair said:

"At least read the lead post of 1st September, if you please! Thanks

for your inspiring inputs anyway."

 

 

I did read the article, and it was quite interesting. I would like

to comment on this excerpt:

 

"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.?"

 

 

It is indeed quite fascinating to speculate about what other kinds of

senses there might be. Imagine being born blind and suddenly

recovering one's sight. You will be amazed!

 

However, I do think that there is something special about sight.

None of the other senses that we are familiar with have such a wealth

of detail, especially as far as spatial relationships are concerned.

(And yes, I do agree that space is an illusion within consciousness,

projected by the mind on an imaginary 'outside'. It is this illusion

that I am talking about.) It is truly sight that makes us aware of

the 'universe' in all its detail. Sound is a distant runner up.

Imagine how extremely limited the mind and life and consciousness of

a mole or worm must be, who has only touch and perhaps smell.

 

So sight is far and away the king of the senses, and the only one

that gives us a representation of reality it all of its vast expanse

and exquisite detail.

 

Furthermore, although I totally agree with Advaita that only

consciousness exists and that any notion of an 'external' objective

world is an illusory projection, I nevertheless do not feel any need

to denigrate sight, as sometimes seems to be the case in those

spiritual paths which look with suspicion upon the so-called body.

That is, I believe that this mayic illusion of a whole vast universe,

with all its color and glory, is fundamentally a good thing, provided

our attitude is purified. If we can see it all as a magical

projection of the mind of Brahman, then it becomes a fascinating

spectacle and entertainment. I see nothing wrong with this, as long

as we do not become attached to any of it or identify with any of it.

 

(Purists may not like my reference to the 'mind' of Brahman, since

the conceptual mind is sort of the 'enemy' for advaitins. But if the

universe is a projection of Brahman, then form and color must be

fundamentally 'good', and these are closely associated with the

'mind', in some sense. Again, it is our attitude that must be

purified.)

 

Finally, I would like to reiterate what I said before, that the

'illumination' that mystics sometimes speak of may simply be the

enhanced sensitivity of consciousness when it is purified. To be

quite specific, I believe that when we see everything as the magical

projection of the consciousness of Brahman, then the universe appears

as a kind of glowing paradise, even in those places and planets where

people still suffer from ignorance and delusion. As consciousness

becomes more pure and intense, our senses become more acute, and

everything seems to be glowing with a heavenly light.

 

Please don't think I am there yet, but I do like thinking and

speculating about it! Let us remain idealistic and strive for the

ultimate.

 

Hari Om!

Benjamin

[Guest guest]

On Tue, 09 Sep 2003 12:20:46 -0400, Benjamin Root <orion777ben

wrote:

> I did read the article, and it was quite interesting. I would like

> to comment on this excerpt:

>

> "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.?"

<snip>

> Imagine how extremely limited the mind and life and consciousness of

> a mole or worm must be, who has only touch and perhaps smell.

<snip>

> Finally, I would like to reiterate what I said before, that the

> 'illumination' that mystics sometimes speak of may simply be the

> enhanced sensitivity of consciousness when it is purified...

> As consciousness

> becomes more pure and intense, our senses become more acute, and

> everything seems to be glowing with a heavenly light.

 

Namaste,

 

Guy Murchie wrote in "The Seven Mysteries of Life" of "the difference

between, say, a horsefly, who can easily see the gaps between frames in a

standard movie, and a garden snail, who, researchers have found, cannot

react to any visual event in less than four seconds and therefore

theoretically could see a continuous movie when the frames were changing

at about the pace of a slide show."

 

A snail would not notice a gigantic explosion if the light and sound

thereof lasted less than four seconds, even if it happened in close

proximity.

 

Our own organs of perception and reaction have the same sort of limits,

but, living as we do "inside" the box, we are not ordinarily aware of

phenomena outside our range. X-rays and a host of other light phenomena

are either too slow or too fast for us to see, a whole world of sounds are

too deep or too high for our hearing.

 

It makes one wonder what sort of beings may be fluttering all around us,

outside the range of perception. And it raises the question of what we

would be be able to see and hear were the mind to become more quick or

more still.

 

Along this line, consider the implications of the findings presented in

the article "ORGAN MUSIC 'INSTILS RELIGIOUS FEELINGS'" By Jonathan Amos,

BBC News Monday, September 8, 2003:

 

"People who experience a sense of spirituality in church may be reacting

to the extreme bass sound produced by some organ pipes. Many churches and

cathedrals have organ pipes that are so long they emit infrasound which at

a frequency lower than 20 Hertz is largely inaudible to the human ear. But

in a controlled experiment in which infrasound was pumped into a concert

hall, UK scientists found they could instil strange feelings in the

audience at will. These included an extreme sense of sorrow, coldness,

anxiety and even shivers down the spine."

--longer article online at

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3087674.stm

 

Regards,

Ramlal

[Guest guest]

advaitin, Guru Venkat <v_vedanti> wrote:

>

> One of the great european musicians, Beethoven was supposedly deaf.

I don't know if he was totally deaf or not.

 

 

Namaste Venkatji,

 

Thank you. His deafness started in adulthood. Here are two

interesting articles:

 

http://www.geocities.com/Vienna/4098/deafbio.html

 

http://www.uwsp.edu/music/bharbach/classes/BeethovenHair.htm

 

 

Regards,

 

Sunder

[Guest guest]

Namaste All,

I am off to Wales today for a week of conferences at

which I am lucky to have the opportunities to present

papers on spiritual experience. Hence I will not be

able to keep up with this topic for a while. I look

forward to reading all the postings later in the

month.

 

I also have a friend critically ill in hospital so

please forgive the rushed element of this posting but

I would like to offer a final few thoughts and quotes

before going to visit her.

I had hoped to post a few thoughts on RgVeda I.110 to

explain why I felt it was so important to this topic

but her illness has taken priority in time.

 

Please note also that I understand quite fully the

advaitin teaching on this topic but the following has

relevance for us as long as we cling on to seeing

'another'. The following may bind us but also remove

some veils; that is the paradox arising from our

attachment to becoming.

 

My forthcoming talks will centre on the words

'madhur', 'svadha' or 'svad' in recorded testimonies

but rarely using these words as the audiences will not

have any knowledge of Sanskrit.

My refs. will be from the Rgveda and the Upanishads

and I hope that 'all will be sweetness and light'.

 

Again, these experiences are not 'realisation' but

valid pointers.

A lady wrote:

'I was then aware of a curious light which seemed to

grow up within me, and become stronger and more

defined as the minutes passed….........the ecstasy

lasted over roughly three weeks. The main sensation

was of being loved, a flood of sweetness of great

strength, without any element of sentimentality or

anything but itself. The description is quite

inadequate. I also felt a unification of myself with

the external world; I did not lose my own identity,

yet all things and I somehow entered into each other;

all things seemed to 'speak' to me………’

 

This 'light' experience is often reported in accounts

and can be known at the subtle as well as gross

levels. The writer acknowledges that the words are

inadequate to explain the fullness of the experience

but please dwell awhile on: 'The main sensation was of

being loved, a flood of sweetness of great strength,

without any element of sentimentality or anything but

itself.'

'Anything but itself ' should ring a few bells with

those who know the Creation Hymn RgVeda. X.129:

'Without breath, That One breathed by its own inherent

might.'

Understanding here far transcends the ability of words

and 'We know no way of teaching this.' ( Kena Up.)

Skeat in his etymological dictionary links the

English word sweet back to the Sanskrit svad ( to

please). Could this be close to 'its own inherent

might...svadh?

 

Must go. I will be able to follow your discussion on

light but unable to join in so may I wish you all the

Light of the True Sun's enlightenment.

As the Rgveda says, 'By Agni Agni is inflamed.'

 

Best wishes

Ken Knight

 

Signing off words come from the diksha ceremony

granted by Papa Ramdas at Anandashram:

'Sugar is sweet. By nature it is sweet. It can never

be bitter. So the Name is by nature sweet. It can

never be bitter. But when this sweet sugar is put in

the mouth of a man who is having some kind of fever,

he finds it not sweet but bitter. He throws it away.

That shows the man is diseased. Sugar is sweet. So

when we are diseased with low desires, the Name does

not taste sweet to us. We must go to the doctor who

can cure us of that disease. That doctor is guru, who

by his presence removes our disease of desires and

gives us this nectarine Name and you find in that

instant that it is sweet and sweetness comes to you as

long as you are repeating the Name, until at last you

become sweetness itself, not merely the taster of

sweetness but sweetness itself. So you drink and drink

and drink the Name until the drinker and the drink

become one.'

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Namaste Ericji.

 

Thanks for your input. I can relate very well to what you have said.

 

I wish others too join in and narrate their personal experiences,

particularly those involving light.

 

I haven't said all that I experience for fear of digressing out of

the parameters of this discussion. Frankly speaking, as a Devi

upasaka, I hear the sounds of anklets and music in my ears most of

the time. Even if I close my ears tight, these very pleasant sounds

persist. Some spiritually knowledgable persons suggest that it may

be due to kundalini awakening. They advise me not to divulge the

matter to others. I haven't followed their advice as, if it is the

Devi's Grace indeed (I hope it is), She should have no reason to

withhold it from me when I continue with my devotion for Her.

 

I am not superstitious. I confess I have slight hearing impairment

on both my ears. To a lady ENT specialist who studied my case,

however, I pleaded not to interfere with the anklet sounds and music

as they do not in any way interfere with my activities and are in

fact very sweet to live with. The lady understood. In fact, I take

her to be the Devi appearing before me in person, therefore.

 

Thank you one again, Eric. May your input inspire others also to

share their expereinces.

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

 

___________________

 

advaitin, "Eric Jautee" <eric.jauteev@w...>

wrote:

>   ** Very modestly, I bring here my own experience. I experienced

frequent =

>

> moments as steps towards self-realization. ....

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sunderji,

 

As usual, my comments are in brackets.

 

Sunderji: In Bhu Loka, existence without the Sun would be an

impossibilty,and the eye will have to function as the chief

intermediary sense. The importance of the Gayatri/Savitri is thus

incalculable.

 

[i wish someone on our List had talked about Gayatri/Savitri japa and

its prakAshik (I don't want to use the word visual) significance in

spiritual development. This (Light in Enlightenment) is the most

opportune time to do that. Since Gayatri has figured in our recent

discussions, I am sure someone among us can narrate their experiences

and understanding in this regard.]

 

 

Sunderji: Very interesting point (the symbolism in kAshAya as the

attire of the Self). Will have to do some research on the

history of this.

 

[Hope you are working on it and will be back soon with your

findings. Others are also invited to join in with their

understanding of the suggested symbolism.]

 

PraNAms.

 

Madahtil Nair