Nirvana different for different people

[Guest guest]

Dear Sir,

> Nirvana or enlightenment or jivanmukti can mean different things to

> different people. What may be enlightenment to a dvaitin or a

bauddha

> will not be acceptable to an advaitin and vice-versa.

 

I donot wish to drag a debate here, but just beg to differ with you in

this matter.

 

Enlightenment cannot be different for different people, if they know

what it is. Everyone has to be enlightened in the same way to be

called enlightened.

 

Nirvana is not an object. Only an object of our imagination can mean

different things to different people. Ten blind men holding different

parts of an elephant will imagine the elephant to be different things,

and each will fight the other. Even people with eyesight, can fight

each other about the validity of the assumptions of identity of an

object with some figment of imagination, depending upon the viewpoint

they have and depending on their perspective.

 

But nirvana is not an object derived from some text, or some other

object. Why, it is not even an objective, although through our

gumption of volition, we think of it as one. One who has nirvana as

objective does not know nirvana. Nirvana is not a state of existence,

or of consciousness. It is the utmost fallacy of any philosophy that

nirvana is said to be attained in some state of consciousness.

 

Nirvana is beyond, objectification, attainment, consciousness or

anything that we can think of. The mind or our imagination has no way

of knowing what it is. It cannot be something that comes to us in a

state of consciousness, because if it were true, then how do we know

if the feelings arising out of dreams, or wakened consciousness, or

deep slumber are not nirvana. Also if it were to be known only in some

state, then it is a product of that state and not an eternal truth.

 

Then what is the purpose of a holy life? A holy life is meant for

having no bondages, once freed from physical bondages, and all mental

bondages, one "enters" nirvana. The statement might seem as if, it

were a state or a room or a house, but it is only due to lack of

proper words to express it, that we use these terms like "enters".

 

By saying that "nirvana is beyond attainment" I clearly mean that one

can never "attain" nirvana. Only a thing can be attained. The desire

and attachment for even nirvana has to be given up and only then does

one really know the deathless, the absolute, beyond all, truth,

infinite and perfect bliss. Again this perfect bliss, the deathless,

etc. are not objects, nor does it refer to an object with such

characteristics, but only jointly and independently try to sum up the

incomprehensibility of nirvana.

 

When I say "nirvana is not attained is a state of consciousness", a

Vedantist is tempted to say that the Taittriya Upanishad talks of

'tureeya' "state of consciousness". But 'tureeya' is not a state of

consciousness, and the Upanishad does not talk of it as such. When one

is enlightened, there is no consciousness. That does not mean, one is

unconscious, but that there is no object that one perceives through

his senses, or sense consciousness. This is because he has lost his

false notion of self as composed of, the body, the feelings, the

perceptions, the memories and mental constructions, the consciousness

etc. The word 'tureeya', means 'unfathomable'. It is not a state of

consciousness, but beyond all consciousness.

 

When one knows nirvana for sure and right through all the deep fathoms

of our consciousness, that it is neither object, nor state, nor

consciousness, and when one uses the apophatic approach of "not this,

not this", taught in the Upanishad as "neti, neti" or by the Buddha as

"anatta, anatta", he becomes wise, aware of the truth, awakened, and

knows that beyond the beyonds of all.

 

Anyone using the apophatic approach, whether he calls himself an

Adviatist, Buddhist, Jain, Dvaitist, poorva meemamsist, Christian,

Jew, Muslim, no matter what will know only one truth, if he cares to

know the 'all' and that beyond 'all'. If however, he relishes only in

the small temporary pleasures of one among the 81 different planes of

consciousness, comprising of insects, then animals, then humans, then

gandhabbhas, then gods of no glory, then gods of resplendent glory,

then gods of form and formlessness, then gods of higher planes, then

that of Brahma etc., he only fools himself to enjoy one of these

planes (as heavens) and remains there until he falls back to lower

planes of consciousness. However, one who does not relish in all of

these, who sees the eternal fact of anicca, dukkha and anatta in all

these planes of consciousness, he goes beyond all these planes of

consciousness, becomes wise and is known as a Tathagata (one beyond

everything), and knows that which is neither anicca, nor dukkha, nor

anatta.

 

I donot think nirvana can mean different things for different people.

If you and I claim to be enlightened, but disagree about it, either

one or both of us is not enlightened, and is perhaps only talking

about one of these heavens. For example, the poorva meemamsists,

Christians, and Muslims think of salvation as an "attainment of"

heaven. Heaven can be attained, but that is not nirvana. The dvaitists

for example, talk of salvation in going to the abode of "Vishnu" or

"Brahma" or "Shiva", but that is only a 'loka' or a plane of

consciousness. It is not nirvana. The vajrayana Buddhists think of a

particular abode of some nameless "Buddha", and think of attainment of

that as satagagati. Maybe satagagati can be attained that way, but not

nirvana. All these people think of these as the final aim of the holy

life, because it appears to be the same as their imagination. So when

their imagination comes right in front of them, they think they have

achieved the aim of life and call it "enlightenment".

 

I donot mean to belittle any school by saying this. Surely some great

people in these schools might have been enlightened, for all we know.

But the popular beleifs that "enlightenment is this" or "enlightenment

is that" are based on imaginations. It would be best for the

interested ones to quit imagining about nirvana, and to know it.

 

Nirvana is beyond all of these abodes or planes of consciousness. But

nothing can be pointed to and can we say: "This is nirvana" or "That

is nirvana". No text, not even the Upanishad, or the pali canon, or

the Bible or Qur-An, can describe nirvana or self knowledge. It can

only be known. The experience of true enlightenment is the same for

all; it is universal and is a universal remedy for all sorrow and

suffering, an unbinding from all bondages of this and other worlds.

 

-Bhikku Yogi

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "bhikkuyogi" <-Bhikku Yogi

 

Dear Bhikku Yogi,

 

maybe Nirwana is the mountain that was described before....it's the

same mountain for all....

 

i believe that sooner or later.....everybody reach the top of this

mountain....

 

what make the difference in people?

 

the difference make time and space.....

 

without time and space.....means outside this limited mind

consciousness........everything Is already ......

wherever a mind could ever imagine and feel to Be....

 

there are realy "different" people existing?....

 

....if one reach the top of the mountain one day.....maybe this appear

clearer....

 

wish us a good path.....

 

Regards and Love

 

Marc

[Guest guest]

Sri Bhikkuyogi wrote:

> Enlightenment cannot be different for different people, ..

 

For a dvaitin, mukti is an opportunity to serve saguNa brahman for

eternity. Is this meaning same as or different from yours?

>.. if they know what it is.

 

What if they know but still do not want that as their mukti?

> Everyone has to be enlightened in the same way to be

> called enlightened.

 

Bhaktas have spurned even four types of muktis to remain contented as

dAsAnudAsa of bhagvAn -- which they consider as ultimate mukti. They

do not desire anything else as mukti. Is this mukti same as nirvANa of

a buddha or jivanmukti of a shankar? Is it inferior to them?

 

It is only intellectual arrogance to presume that what everyone else

is seeking in enlightenment is the same thing I have in my mind.

 

praNAm

[Guest guest]

advaitin, Sanjay Srivastava

<sksrivastava68@g...> wrote:

> Sri Bhikkuyogi wrote:

>

> > Enlightenment cannot be different for different people, ..

>

> For a dvaitin, mukti is an opportunity to serve saguNa brahman for

> eternity. Is this meaning same as or different from yours?

>

......

> praNAm

 

Namaste,IMHO,

 

The Yogas of the Gita are different but end up the same way. A

jnanai may take the path of discrimination, but a Bhakti the one of

Love. In the end result if one merges with the Divine Ishtadevata

Sakti one realises Nirguna at the same time. So all paths lead to

the one ending. The end of lives and illusion.

There is a possibility that a Bhakti may not merge completely and

remain in the Brahmaloka until Pralaya, but this is just a step in

the same direction...........Nir Vana, Nir Guna they all mean

essentially the same thing ultimately..........ONS...Tony.

[Guest guest]

Namaste:

 

Here are some thoughts expressed by Saint j~nneshvra maharaj who

precticed and preached advaitapar bhakti. He classifies bhakti as

the 5th purusharrtha

 

chuu.n purushaarthaa shirii.n | bahkti jaishii || j~nnesvarii

18.867 ||

 

He believed in bhakti and karma for the realization of j~nna.

 

taisii kiyaa kiira na saahe | tarhii advaittii.m bhakti aahe

||j~nnesvarii 18.1151 ||

 

He preached that in advaita-anubhuuti although several vyavahaara

continue to occur and happen it does not affect the fundamental

advaitic principles.

 

He says, becoming knowledgable of "aatmaa" is not like gaining

knowledge of another object; but aatmaj~na is advitaanubhava. He

regards the experience of parabhakti even higher than the moksha as

the final paaramaarthika experience.

 

jayaa bhaktii cii yetulii praptii | je kaivalyaate.n prate sara

mhaNatii || j~nnesvarii 9. 192 ||

 

 

Regards,

 

Dr. Yadu

 

advaitin, "Tony OClery" <aoclery> wrote:

> advaitin, Sanjay Srivastava

> <sksrivastava68@g...> wrote:

> > Sri Bhikkuyogi wrote:

> >

> > > Enlightenment cannot be different for different people, ..

> >

> > For a dvaitin, mukti is an opportunity to serve saguNa brahman

for

> > eternity. Is this meaning same as or different from yours?

> >

> .....

> > praNAm

>

> Namaste,IMHO,

>

> The Yogas of the Gita are different but end up the same way. A

> jnanai may take the path of discrimination, but a Bhakti the one

of

> Love. In the end result if one merges with the Divine Ishtadevata

> Sakti one realises Nirguna at the same time. So all paths lead to

> the one ending. The end of lives and illusion.

> There is a possibility that a Bhakti may not merge completely and

> remain in the Brahmaloka until Pralaya, but this is just a step in

> the same direction...........Nir Vana, Nir Guna they all mean

> essentially the same thing ultimately..........ONS...Tony.

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "ymoharir" <ymoharir> wrote:

> Namaste:

>

> He says, becoming knowledgable of "aatmaa" is not like gaining

> knowledge of another object; but aatmaj~na is advitaanubhava. He

> regards the experience of parabhakti even higher than the moksha as

> the final paaramaarthika experience.

 

Namaste Y-ji,

 

Any experience cannot be compared to Moksha for it is above

experience...ONS..Tony.

[Guest guest]

Namaste Toni-Ji:

 

In the context of bhakti I recall famous lines of "kshemendra", a

11the Century poet/saint who was a viShNubhakta at the core and who

practiced ananyabhakti.

 

He says:

 

santoSho yadi ki.m dhanaiH, sukhashataiH tadyanaayattataa |

vairaagya.m yadi ki.m vrataiH kimakhilaistyaagairviveko yadi ||

satsa~Ngo yadi ki.m digantagamanaprasthanarthashramaiH |

shriikaante yadi bhaktirapratihataa tatki.m samaadhikramaiH ||

 

Meaning - If your consensus is contented then no need for the money.

What is the use of having all the comforts if there is no freedom? If

there is vairaagya then there is no need for vrata. If there is

vivaka (ability to rationalize) then all donations and alms are

useless. If there is good company (satsa.nga) then why take the

troubles of pilgrimage (tiiratha yaatraa)? If there is apratihita

bhakti for shrhari, than there is no need for even attempting to gain

experiences of samaadhi.

 

Finally all the experiences (saguNa) one can possibly have are always

going to be limited but it's quality has been compared to highest

states that are regarded as the highest experiences for a yogi.

 

Once there is the moxa then that further breaks the boundries of

saguNatva.

 

Regards,

 

Dr. Yadu

 

 

 

advaitin, "Tony OClery" <aoclery> wrote:

> advaitin, "ymoharir" <ymoharir> wrote:

> > Namaste:

> >

>

> > He says, becoming knowledgable of "aatmaa" is not like gaining

> > knowledge of another object; but aatmaj~na is advitaanubhava. He

> > regards the experience of parabhakti even higher than the moksha

as

> > the final paaramaarthika experience.

>

> Namaste Y-ji,

>

> Any experience cannot be compared to Moksha for it is above

> experience...ONS..Tony.