Nirvikalpa Samadhi (Samadhi)

[Guest guest]

Namaste,

["When I am in Nirvikalpa samadhi, there is no experience. Thus, anything I say about the "experience" of Nirvikalpa samadhi is actually the observation of an I-ness as it is being torn down or being reconstructed, i.e. just before or after Nirvikalpa samadhi but not *during* it."]

To me, that was a superb statement because it cleared confusion surrounding experiences of Nirvikalpa samadhi.

Thank you very much for the same.

Best Regards,

Utpal

 

 

, "Narasimha P.V.R. Rao" <pvr108 wrote:>> Namaste Rajarshi,>  > Samadhi literally means absolute focus and concentration. There are different kinds of samadhi and they can be experienced differently by different people, as you said. You correctly questioned how different people can describe "Nirvikalpa samadhi" differently.>  > The issue is this. Nirvikalpa samadhi is a state of being where there is no "experiencer", nothing "to experience" and also no act of "experiencing". In other words, there is no observer (subject), observed (object) and observing (action). All merge into one.>  > When I-ness (the sense that "this is I. There are others. I can observe them") disappears, what is the basis for any objectification in the Supreme Cosmic Essence? If there is no objectification, how can there be any experience or observation? If there is no observation and experience, how can you describe Nirvikalpa samadhi?>  > Bottomline is that there is nothing to describe in Nirvikalpa samadhi. Regarding Nirvikalpa samadhi, Manish once said to me: "When I am in Nirvikalpa samadhi, there is no experience. Thus, anything I say about the "experience" of Nirvikalpa samadhi is actually the observation of an I-ness as it is being torn down or being reconstructed, i.e. just before or after Nirvikalpa samadhi but not *during* it.">  > This is essentially the problem with "describing" Nirvikalpa samadhi!>  > *       *       *>  > In terms of the diamond analogy quoted by Kishore, what different yogis are saying about the "experience" of Nirvikalpa samadhi says more about the path they are taking into the inside of the diamond, rather than describing the inside of the diamond itself. One may think "nothing really exists apart from Brahman - all this I am perceiving is a delusion". Another may think "all I perceive is actually Brahman". Another may think "all that I perceive is actually a minute part of Krishna". And so on. Once one is able to focus I-ness on a specific thought and everything else disappears from the mind, one is in samadhi. Once that I-ness also disappears, one is in Nirvikalpa samadhi. However, one can only describe the last thought on which I-ness was focused prior to Nirvikalpa samadhi and NOT the Nirvikalpa samadhi itself.>  > Some yogis prefer the stage just before Nirvikalpa samadhi where a trace of I-ness is left in an intense focus on one thought, to Nirvikalpa samadhi itself. In the former, there is an experience and bliss - some rasa (juice). In the latter, there is no experience.>  > *       *       *>  > Buddha is a great jnaani and his statement is perfect. However, one who is not at Buddha's wavelength can easily misunderstand it. If an observer exists and observes "void", that is different. What we are talking about here is the absence of observer, i.e. merging of observer, observed and the act of observing into one, without ANY distinction whatsoever between them. Is "void" the right word to describe that state or is "everything" the right word? Is there a good way to describe it? Problem is that the word "void" may make people imagine a scenario where there is an observer, but a void to observe.>  > Best regards,> Narasimha> ->  Free Jyotish Software, Free Jyotish Lessons, Jyotish Writings,> "Do It Yourself" ritual manuals for short Homam and Pitri Tarpana:>                  http://www.VedicAstrologer.org>     Films that make a difference: http://SaraswatiFilms.org >     Spirituality: >  Jyotish writings: JyotishWritings> ->  > --- On Tue, 12/29/09, rajarshi nandy rajarshi14 wrote:> rajarshi nandy rajarshi14 Re: Samadhi> > Tuesday, December 29, 2009, 1:27 PM> > > > > > > >  > > > > > > > > > > Namaste,>  > I understand the example given in that superb mail, yet some confusion exist (in my understanding) .>  > See, Sri Ramakrishna, when he was asked about Nirvikalpa Samadhi said he cannot describe it in words like the salt doll example provided by Hari. >  > > After all, Rigveda says "ekam sat vipraa bahudhaa vadanti", which means> > "Truth is One, but the learned call differently" . >  > True. Now I see this line in different ways - 1) As different saints have mentioned different sadhanas/paths to achieve God. 2) Secondly as you mentioned, that Truth is One, but saints call it differently.>  > From from the diamond analogy I understand that if X reaches a certain face of the diamond and Y reaches another face of the diamond, they percieve it differently, thought both faces are the same diamond, just different aspects. This is OK. This can be equal to savikalpa samadhi and may be experienced differently depending upon the individual.>  > Now>  > > As you break through any face of the diamond> > and jump into the interior of the diamond, you no longer perceive the faces > > of the diamond or the world outside. There are no longer any objects or > > attributes. There is no I-ness or It-ness or experience. The experiencer, > > experienced and experience all merge into one.>  > 1) This seems logical and is also the main cause of my confusion. When we say that we enter the middle of the diamond, when duality is no more, then how can it be experienced differently by different people? Shouldn't it be the same? I thought, whichever face of teh diamond you chose as your entry point, the middle of teh diamond should feel and look exactly similar. Please correct me if I am wrong in my understanding.  And yet these three spiritual gaints have spoken differently of their realizations. If duality itself does not exist, then how can the field of possiblity at all arise? Which means, how can there be a difference in the "perception" of the same One final Truth?>  > 2) Not to mention the query about whether, that which is transcendental in its basic nature (Truth/One/Middle of the diamond), can at all be described from within the field of duality? Then I wonder why these three people - saints of highest order - try to describe it when all descriptions are from within duality...>  > Considering the above, I understand the wisdom (theoritically) of why Ramakrishna refused to describe Nirvikalpa Samadhi. >  > I also wonder whether the three saints, Sri Ramana Maharishi, Sri Aurobindo and Lord Buddha were speaking from teh same realization of the One/Truth, or was it different kinds of realizations. By this I mean, can it be possible that there are different intermediate or not properly documented stages of samadhi apart from the standard savikalpa/nirvikalp a/sajaha?>  > PS: I can understand that maybe Buddha did not mention a void per se, he probably mentioned that there is nothing - for lack of any better words - and stopped further discussion. Over years his words could have got corrupted to some degree and people mistook it to mean Buddha was saying there is a void. >  > -Regards>  Rajarshi>  > > . . .> > > > > > The upsurge (of consciousness) is Bhairava - Shiva Sutra> > --- On Tue, 29/12/09, Kishore Chitrapu chitrapu (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote:> Kishore Chitrapu chitrapu (AT) gmail (DOT) com>> Re: Samadhi> > Tuesday, 29 December, 2009, 9:00 PM> > > >  > > Namaste Rajarshi,> > The bright star in the sky analogy that Narasimha posted (http://groups. / group/vedic- wisdom/message/ 83) may answer your questions.> Few excerpts of that mail:> > > After all, Rigveda says "ekam sat vipraa bahudhaa vadanti", which means> > "Truth is One, but the learned call differently" . > . . .> > > As you break through any face of the diamond> > and jump into the interior of the diamond, you no longer perceive the faces > > of the diamond or the world outside. There are no longer any objects or > > attributes. There is no I-ness or It-ness or experience. The experiencer, > > experienced and experience all merge into one.> > Sri> Aurobindo's and Sri Ramana Maharishi's versions seems to be covered in the third and fourth sentences. No objects or attributes may be equivalent to void as in Buddha's version. > > -Kishore> > > > > > > On Tue, Dec 29, 2009 at 9:38 AM, rajarshi nandy rajarshi14 (AT) (DOT) co.in> wrote:> > >  > > > > > > > > > Namaste,>  > Why have different people - saints - described self-realization so differently?>  > 1) Sri Rama Maharishi says in the experience of self, everything feels like only the self exists.>  > 2) Sri Aurobindo says NIrvikalapa Samadhi feels like there is no I-ness.>  > 3)Lord Buddha says it is a void.>  >  > If it is the same thing all are describing, why is there such a vast difference in the experince of the same reality?>  > -Regards>  Rajarshi> > > > The upsurge (of consciousness) is Bhairava - Shiva Sutra> > > > > > . > > > > > The INTERNET now has a personality. YOURS! See your Homepage. > > > > > > > > The INTERNET now has a personality. YOURS! See your Homepage.>

[Guest guest]

Namaste, As this may be of interest to others too, I will reply on the list without revealing your identity. You seem to be referring to the incident in the following message after guessing and filling in some blanks: /message/951 * * * If someone is in non-dual Nirvikalpa samadhi, one does not perceive a manifestation of a goddess or what someone else is doing thousands of kilometres away. One will perceive such things only when in dualistic samadhis. Some people who can reach Nirvikalpa samadhi may sometimes be in Nirvikalpa samadhi and sometimes in other dualistic samadhis. For example, Totapuri was familiar only with non-dual Nirvikalpa samadhi, but

Ramakrishna Paramahamsa used to go to non-dual Nirvikalpa samadhi as well as other dualistic samadhis frequently. * * * One more thing.. One who reaches Nirvikalpa samadhi may experience a lot of things in the transition to/from it. When one's mind goes from one space-time point to the root of all space-times where there is no concept of space and time or when one's mind is coming back from it to one space-time point, one's mind may become "aware of" several space-time points during the transition. Thus, a yogi who goes to Nirvikalpa samadhi and comes back (instead of merging in Brahman forever) may "know" some things that he would otherwise not know. * * * Most yogis cannot control what parts of the duality they perceive.

But rishis used to be able to go to any space-time point at will and perceive *anything* within duality. Nothing within duality is hidden from them. This is the difference between different beings. Many yogis may be able to overcome mental conditioning through sadhana and absorb mind in non-dual Self and become liberated. Very few can come back to duality after that and continue to live in duality unaffected by it. Of those, different people have different levels of mastery over duality. Mastering non-duality is one thing and mastering duality is another. Best regards,Narasimha- Free Jyotish Software, Free Jyotish Lessons, Jyotish Writings,"Do It Yourself" ritual manuals for short Homam and Pitri Tarpana:

http://www.VedicAstrologer.org Films that make a difference: http://SaraswatiFilms.org Spirituality: Jyotish writings: JyotishWritings- > Dear Narasimha, namaste & pranaams> > An academic question concerning the below lines:> > "Bottomline is that there is nothing to describe in Nirvikalpa samadhi.> > Regarding Nirvikalpa samadhi, Manish once said to me: "When I am in> > Nirvikalpa samadhi, there is no experience. Thus, anything I say about the> > "experience" of Nirvikalpa samadhi is actually the observation of an I-ness> > as it is being torn down or being reconstructed, i.e. just before or after> > Nirvikalpa samadhi

but not *during* it."> >> > This is essentially the problem with "describing" Nirvikalpa samadhi!> >> Suppose Manish is in nirvikalpa samadhi, then how is he able to perceive> manifestation of Goddess Kalikambal before him? How is he able to understand> that the beejakshara medidated on by a person thousands of kilometres away> is this specific beejakshara?> > best regards> <deleted>