Samadhi is a significant step in spiritual evolution, but still not Ultimate

[Guest guest]

Experiencing Samadhi

 

" Experiencing a certain type of Samadhi, does not mean you are released from

Existence. . It is a significant step in one's spiritual evolution, but still

not the ultimate. " - Sadhguru

 

There are various types of samadhis. For the sake of understanding, samadhis

have been classified into eight forms. Of these eight, they have been broadly

categorized as savikalpa and nirvikalpa, samadhis with attributes or qualities

and samadhis without attributes or qualities.

 

We see with Isha Yoga, people go into different types of samadhis. Here it is

common to witness both savikalpa and nirvikalpa types. Samadhi is a certain

state of equanimity where the intellect goes beyond its normal function of

discrimination. This, in turn, loosens one from his physical body. In samadhi

states, one becomes loose inside the body or there is a space between what is

you and your body. These samadhis, by themselves have no great significance in

terms of Realization. Experiencing a certain type of samadhi, does not mean you

are released from Existence. It is just a new level of experience.

 

It is like when you were a child, you had one level of experience, once you

moved into your adulthood, you have another level of experience. The same things

that you have experienced at a particular point in your life, after a few years,

you experience them in a totally different way. So, you have moved from one

level of experience to another level of experience.

 

Samadhis are just like this. You are moving from one level of experience to

another level of experience in a much more significant and deeper sense. Still,

it is just another level of experience.

 

Somebody may go into a certain level of samadhi and stay there for years because

it is enjoyable. There is no space or time. There are no bodily problems. He has

broken the physical and psychological barriers to some extent. But this is only

temporary. The moment he comes out, again he gets hungry, he has to sleep, and

again everything comes back.

 

Samadhi definitely has its benefits. There are many things it has to offer for

an individual, but this doesn't really take you closer to Realization, as such.

Compared to a man who is sober, a man who is slightly drunk, has a different

level of experience, but he has to come down at some point. All samadhis, I

would say, are a way of getting high without any external chemicals. Now, by

going into these states, it opens up a new dimension for you, but it doesn't

leave any great transformation behind. It doesn't leave you permanently

transformed.

 

You have not moved into another reality. In the same reality, your level of

experiences has deepened. You have experienced the same things in a little

deeper sense. You have not become free from the mind.

 

Now, somebody meditates for 12 years and comes out. Even after 12 years, he may

not be a realized being, but, maybe he is a little closer. When you go into

another reality and stay there for long hours or long years, the grip of this

reality is broken on you. Now, you have come to an experiential understanding

that, this is not it. Not just an intellectual understanding, you have seen

experientially that this is not it. That is the whole purpose of long

meditations. But most realized beings never went into samadhi states.

 

Gautama never sat for 12 years in one place. Many of his disciples, many

Buddhist monks went into very long meditations. They never came out for years,

but Gautama himself never went, because he saw it is not necessary.

 

He practiced and experienced all the eight kinds of samadhis before his

enlightenment and he discarded them. He said, " This is not it " . This is not

going to take you any closer to realization. It is just moving into a higher

level of experience and probably you will get more caught up, because it is more

beautiful than the current reality.

 

If the goal is set, if you've made realization the top priority in your life,

then every thing else which doesn't take you one step closer is meaningless.

Let's say you are climbing the Mount Everest, you will not take one step

sideways, because every ounce of energy is needed. Now, if you have to transcend

your own consciousness, you need every ounce of what you have and it's not

enough. So, any action that we perform, we don't want it to be a sidewinder.

 

We have created powerful consecrated spaces where experiencing samadhi states

comes very naturally. There are samadhis that are very pleasant, blissful, and

ecstatic and there are samadhis that are beyond this. Those who go into samadhi

states beyond pleasant or unpleasant, or nirvikalpa, we always keep them in

protected states as their contact with the body has become very minimal. The

smallest disturbance, like a sound or a pinprick would dislodge them from their

body. These states are maintained for certain periods to establish the

distinction between you and the body. It is a significant step in one's

spiritual evolution, but still not the Ultimate.

 

 

 

, " vedic_pathak " <vedic_pathak wrote:

>

>

> 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,

> > Â

> > 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.

> > Â

> > 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.

> > Â

> > 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?

> > Â

> > 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. "

> > Â

> > This is essentially the problem with " describing " Nirvikalpa samadhi!

> > Â

> > *Â Â Â Â Â Â Â *Â Â Â Â Â Â

> Â *

> > Â

> > 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.

> > Â

> > 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.

> > Â

> > *Â Â Â Â Â Â Â *Â Â Â Â Â Â

> Â *

> > Â

> > 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.

> > Â

> > Best regards,

> > Narasimha

> > -

> > Â Free Jyotish Software, Free Jyotish Lessons, Jyotish Writings,

> > " Do It Yourself " ritual manuals for short Homam and Pitri Tarpana:

> > Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â

> Â Â Â http://www.VedicAstrologer.org

> > Â Â Â Â Films that make a difference:

> http://SaraswatiFilms.org

> > Â Â Â Â Spirituality:

>

> > Â Jyotish writings: JyotishWritings

> > -

> > Â

> > --- On Tue, 12/29/09, rajarshi nandy rajarshi14@ wrote:

> > rajarshi nandy rajarshi14@

> > Re: Samadhi

> >

> > Tuesday, December 29, 2009, 1:27 PM

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > Â

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > Namaste,

> > Â

> > I understand the example given in that superb mail, yet some confusion

> exist (in my understanding) .

> > Â

> > 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.

> > Â

> > > After all, Rigveda says " ekam sat vipraa bahudhaa vadanti " , which

> means

> > > " Truth is One, but the learned call differently " .

> > Â

> > 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.

> > Â

> > 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.

> > Â

> > Now

> > Â

> > > As you break through any face of the diamond

> > > and jump into the interior of the diamond, you no longer perceive

> the facesÂ

> > > 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.

> > Â

> > 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?

> > Â

> > 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...

> > Â

> > Considering the above, I understand the wisdom (theoritically) of why

> Ramakrishna refused to describe Nirvikalpa Samadhi.Â

> > Â

> > I also wonder whether the three saints, Sri Ramana Maharishi, Sri

> Aurobindo and Lord Buddha were speaking from teh same realization ofÂ

> 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 standardÂ

> savikalpa/nirvikalp a/sajaha?

> > Â

> > 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 -Â 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.

> > Â

> > -Regards

> > Â Rajarshi

> > Â

> >

> > . . .

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > 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

> >

> >

> >

> > Â

> >

> > 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 facesÂ

> > > 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:

> >

> >

> > Â

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > Namaste,

> > Â

> > Why have different people - saints - described self-realization so

> differently?

> > Â

> > 1) Sri Rama Maharishi says in the experience of self, everything feels

> like only the self exists.

> > Â

> > 2) Sri Aurobindo says NIrvikalapa Samadhi feels like there is no

> I-ness.

> > Â

> > 3)Lord Buddha says it is a void.

> > Â

> > Â

> > If it is the same thing all are describing, why is there such a vast

> difference in the experince of the same reality?

> > Â

> > -Regards

> > Â 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,

 

First of all, a very happening 2010 (Sprirtually) for you and everybody on the

list.

 

Detailed article and i understand that you wish to stress that various

Samadhis(or probably All samadhis including Nirvikalpa) are but Steps to reach

Realisation and should not be given over importance.

 

your message raised some questions in me. i put it infront of you.

 

* What is Final realisation or simply 'Realisation' or 'Ultimate' achievement -

reaching where, there is nothing more left?

 

* It is claimed by experienced people that Nirvikalpa samadhi is 'Merging in the

absolute'. *No objectification* state. No distinction of Obsever, Obseved and

observation. Ekmevaadwitiya.

Then if it is still not the realisation then what is called the realisation?.

Whom we can call Brahma Gnyaani?

 

* If a person goes in to Nirvikalpa Samadhi *first time*, is he/she not comeout

as Knower of Brahman?

 

 

Please share your understanding by answering my queries.

 

Regards,

 

utpal

 

, " vvootla " <vvootla wrote:

>

> Experiencing Samadhi

>

> " Experiencing a certain type of Samadhi, does not mean you are released from

Existence. . It is a significant step in one's spiritual evolution, but still

not the ultimate. " - Sadhguru

>

> There are various types of samadhis. For the sake of understanding, samadhis

have been classified into eight forms. Of these eight, they have been broadly

categorized as savikalpa and nirvikalpa, samadhis with attributes or qualities

and samadhis without attributes or qualities.

>

> We see with Isha Yoga, people go into different types of samadhis. Here it is

common to witness both savikalpa and nirvikalpa types. Samadhi is a certain

state of equanimity where the intellect goes beyond its normal function of

discrimination. This, in turn, loosens one from his physical body. In samadhi

states, one becomes loose inside the body or there is a space between what is

you and your body. These samadhis, by themselves have no great significance in

terms of Realization. Experiencing a certain type of samadhi, does not mean you

are released from Existence. It is just a new level of experience.

>

> It is like when you were a child, you had one level of experience, once you

moved into your adulthood, you have another level of experience. The same things

that you have experienced at a particular point in your life, after a few years,

you experience them in a totally different way. So, you have moved from one

level of experience to another level of experience.

>

> Samadhis are just like this. You are moving from one level of experience to

another level of experience in a much more significant and deeper sense. Still,

it is just another level of experience.

>

> Somebody may go into a certain level of samadhi and stay there for years

because it is enjoyable. There is no space or time. There are no bodily

problems. He has broken the physical and psychological barriers to some extent.

But this is only temporary. The moment he comes out, again he gets hungry, he

has to sleep, and again everything comes back.

>

> Samadhi definitely has its benefits. There are many things it has to offer for

an individual, but this doesn't really take you closer to Realization, as such.

Compared to a man who is sober, a man who is slightly drunk, has a different

level of experience, but he has to come down at some point. All samadhis, I

would say, are a way of getting high without any external chemicals. Now, by

going into these states, it opens up a new dimension for you, but it doesn't

leave any great transformation behind. It doesn't leave you permanently

transformed.

>

> You have not moved into another reality. In the same reality, your level of

experiences has deepened. You have experienced the same things in a little

deeper sense. You have not become free from the mind.

>

> Now, somebody meditates for 12 years and comes out. Even after 12 years, he

may not be a realized being, but, maybe he is a little closer. When you go into

another reality and stay there for long hours or long years, the grip of this

reality is broken on you. Now, you have come to an experiential understanding

that, this is not it. Not just an intellectual understanding, you have seen

experientially that this is not it. That is the whole purpose of long

meditations. But most realized beings never went into samadhi states.

>

> Gautama never sat for 12 years in one place. Many of his disciples, many

Buddhist monks went into very long meditations. They never came out for years,

but Gautama himself never went, because he saw it is not necessary.

>

> He practiced and experienced all the eight kinds of samadhis before his

enlightenment and he discarded them. He said, " This is not it " . This is not

going to take you any closer to realization. It is just moving into a higher

level of experience and probably you will get more caught up, because it is more

beautiful than the current reality.

>

> If the goal is set, if you've made realization the top priority in your life,

then every thing else which doesn't take you one step closer is meaningless.

Let's say you are climbing the Mount Everest, you will not take one step

sideways, because every ounce of energy is needed. Now, if you have to transcend

your own consciousness, you need every ounce of what you have and it's not

enough. So, any action that we perform, we don't want it to be a sidewinder.

>

> We have created powerful consecrated spaces where experiencing samadhi states

comes very naturally. There are samadhis that are very pleasant, blissful, and

ecstatic and there are samadhis that are beyond this. Those who go into samadhi

states beyond pleasant or unpleasant, or nirvikalpa, we always keep them in

protected states as their contact with the body has become very minimal. The

smallest disturbance, like a sound or a pinprick would dislodge them from their

body. These states are maintained for certain periods to establish the

distinction between you and the body. It is a significant step in one's

spiritual evolution, but still not the Ultimate.

>

>

>

> , " vedic_pathak " <vedic_pathak@> wrote:

> >

> >

> > 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,

> > > Â

> > > 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.

> > > Â

> > > 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.

> > > Â

> > > 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?

> > > Â

> > > 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. "

> > > Â

> > > This is essentially the problem with " describing " Nirvikalpa samadhi!

> > > Â

> > > *Â Â Â Â Â Â Â *Â Â Â Â Â Â

> > Â *

> > > Â

> > > 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.

> > > Â

> > > 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.

> > > Â

> > > *Â Â Â Â Â Â Â *Â Â Â Â Â Â

> > Â *

> > > Â

> > > 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.

> > > Â

> > > Best regards,

> > > Narasimha

> > > -

> > > Â Free Jyotish Software, Free Jyotish Lessons, Jyotish Writings,

> > > " Do It Yourself " ritual manuals for short Homam and Pitri Tarpana:

> > > Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â

> > Â Â Â http://www.VedicAstrologer.org

> > > Â Â Â Â Films that make a difference:

> > http://SaraswatiFilms.org

> > > Â Â Â Â Spirituality:

> >

> > > Â Jyotish writings: JyotishWritings

> > > -

> > > Â

> > > --- On Tue, 12/29/09, rajarshi nandy rajarshi14@ wrote:

> > > rajarshi nandy rajarshi14@

> > > Re: Samadhi

> > >

> > > Tuesday, December 29, 2009, 1:27 PM

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Â

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Namaste,

> > > Â

> > > I understand the example given in that superb mail, yet some confusion

> > exist (in my understanding) .

> > > Â

> > > 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.

> > > Â

> > > > After all, Rigveda says " ekam sat vipraa bahudhaa vadanti " , which

> > means

> > > > " Truth is One, but the learned call differently " .

> > > Â

> > > 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.

> > > Â

> > > 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.

> > > Â

> > > Now

> > > Â

> > > > As you break through any face of the diamond

> > > > and jump into the interior of the diamond, you no longer perceive

> > the facesÂ

> > > > 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.

> > > Â

> > > 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?

> > > Â

> > > 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...

> > > Â

> > > Considering the above, I understand the wisdom (theoritically) of why

> > Ramakrishna refused to describe Nirvikalpa Samadhi.Â

> > > Â

> > > I also wonder whether the three saints, Sri Ramana Maharishi, Sri

> > Aurobindo and Lord Buddha were speaking from teh same realization ofÂ

> > 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 standardÂ

> > savikalpa/nirvikalp a/sajaha?

> > > Â

> > > 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 -Â 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.

> > > Â

> > > -Regards

> > > Â Rajarshi

> > > Â

> > >

> > > . . .

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > 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

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Â

> > >

> > > 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 facesÂ

> > > > 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:

> > >

> > >

> > > Â

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Namaste,

> > > Â

> > > Why have different people - saints - described self-realization so

> > differently?

> > > Â

> > > 1) Sri Rama Maharishi says in the experience of self, everything feels

> > like only the self exists.

> > > Â

> > > 2) Sri Aurobindo says NIrvikalapa Samadhi feels like there is no

> > I-ness.

> > > Â

> > > 3)Lord Buddha says it is a void.

> > > Â

> > > Â

> > > If it is the same thing all are describing, why is there such a vast

> > difference in the experince of the same reality?

> > > Â

> > > -Regards

> > > Â 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]

Dear Utpal, Realization comes in many levels. I will broadly classify it in 3 groups: (1) Dual Realization: One can experience closeness to deities, oneness to deities etc and realize aspects of Self from a dual perspective. (2) Non-dual Realization: One can merge in non-dual Self. This is Nirvikalpa samadhi. When one goes to Nirvikalpa samadhi, one may either come back and deal with duality again or merge in it forever. If it is the latter, that (i.e. realization of non-dual Self) is the "final realization" for *that being*. (3) Realization of Non-difference between Duality and Non-duality: This is what one pursues if one has to deal with duality after merging in non-dual Self. This is an open-ended process. Non-duality is the simple underlying Truth in all, but its challenge is that it is

imperceptible and reached by subduing I-ness and perception. Duality is perceptible, but its challenge is that it has infinite variety and is pursued through an I-ness and its perception. Keeping an I-ness alive and realizing the oneness of the two is an infinite process with no single event signaling a "perfect" realization. Rishis and deities are pursuing it constantly. When some gods or rishis are back on earth, they may come back to duality after Nirvikalpa samadhi and proceed to deal with the oneness of duality or non-dual Self. When some other classes of beings reach Nirvikalpa samadhi, they do not come back. As Ramakrishna says, this is like a salt doll that goes to survey the depth of the ocean merging in ocean before reaching the ocean bed. * * * One cannot question why some characters in one's dream last for the entire

dream and some characters last a short time. It is the prerogative of the dreamer. Similarly, we are all dream objects in Supreme Cosmic Being's long dream called Creation and we cannot question why some beings are meant to merge in non-dual self and some are meant to last further. When Adwaita teaches the universe is unreal, it is correct. We are just dream characters. But then, it is also correct that different dream characters have different roles to play *within* the dream. Some take part in the dream till the end knowing it is a dream. Some exit the dream once they realize it is immaterial. Some take part in the dream without knowing it is a dream and become quite worried. And so on. 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- --- In , "vedic_pathak" <vedic_pathak wrote:>> Namaste,> > First of all, a very happening 2010 (Sprirtually) for you and everybody on the list.> > Detailed article and i understand that you wish to stress that various Samadhis(or probably All samadhis including Nirvikalpa) are but Steps to reach Realisation and should not be given over importance.> > your message raised some questions in me. i

put it infront of you.> > * What is Final realisation or simply 'Realisation' or 'Ultimate' achievement - reaching where, there is nothing more left?> > * It is claimed by experienced people that Nirvikalpa samadhi is 'Merging in the absolute'. *No objectification* state. No distinction of Obsever, Obseved and observation. Ekmevaadwitiya.> Then if it is still not the realisation then what is called the realisation?. Whom we can call Brahma Gnyaani?> > * If a person goes in to Nirvikalpa Samadhi *first time*, is he/she not comeout as Knower of Brahman?> > Please share your understanding by answering my queries.> > Regards,> > utpal> > , "vvootla" <vvootla@> wrote:> >> > Experiencing Samadhi > > > > "Experiencing a certain type of

Samadhi, does not mean you are released from Existence. . It is a significant step in one's spiritual evolution, but still not the ultimate." - Sadhguru> > > > There are various types of samadhis. For the sake of understanding, samadhis have been classified into eight forms. Of these eight, they have been broadly categorized as savikalpa and nirvikalpa, samadhis with attributes or qualities and samadhis without attributes or qualities. > > > > We see with Isha Yoga, people go into different types of samadhis. Here it is common to witness both savikalpa and nirvikalpa types. Samadhi is a certain state of equanimity where the intellect goes beyond its normal function of discrimination. This, in turn, loosens one from his physical body. In samadhi states, one becomes loose inside the body or there is a space between what is you and your body. These samadhis, by themselves have no great significance in terms of

Realization. Experiencing a certain type of samadhi, does not mean you are released from Existence. It is just a new level of experience. > > > > It is like when you were a child, you had one level of experience, once you moved into your adulthood, you have another level of experience. The same things that you have experienced at a particular point in your life, after a few years, you experience them in a totally different way. So, you have moved from one level of experience to another level of experience. > > > > Samadhis are just like this. You are moving from one level of experience to another level of experience in a much more significant and deeper sense. Still, it is just another level of experience.> > > > Somebody may go into a certain level of samadhi and stay there for years because it is enjoyable. There is no space or time. There are no bodily problems. He has broken the physical

and psychological barriers to some extent. But this is only temporary. The moment he comes out, again he gets hungry, he has to sleep, and again everything comes back. > > > > Samadhi definitely has its benefits. There are many things it has to offer for an individual, but this doesn't really take you closer to Realization, as such. Compared to a man who is sober, a man who is slightly drunk, has a different level of experience, but he has to come down at some point. All samadhis, I would say, are a way of getting high without any external chemicals. Now, by going into these states, it opens up a new dimension for you, but it doesn't leave any great transformation behind. It doesn't leave you permanently transformed. > > > > You have not moved into another reality. In the same reality, your level of experiences has deepened. You have experienced the same things in a little deeper sense. You have not become free

from the mind. > > > > Now, somebody meditates for 12 years and comes out. Even after 12 years, he may not be a realized being, but, maybe he is a little closer. When you go into another reality and stay there for long hours or long years, the grip of this reality is broken on you. Now, you have come to an experiential understanding that, this is not it. Not just an intellectual understanding, you have seen experientially that this is not it. That is the whole purpose of long meditations. But most realized beings never went into samadhi states. > > > > Gautama never sat for 12 years in one place. Many of his disciples, many Buddhist monks went into very long meditations. They never came out for years, but Gautama himself never went, because he saw it is not necessary. > > > > He practiced and experienced all the eight kinds of samadhis before his enlightenment and he discarded them. He said,

"This is not it". This is not going to take you any closer to realization. It is just moving into a higher level of experience and probably you will get more caught up, because it is more beautiful than the current reality. > > > > If the goal is set, if you've made realization the top priority in your life, then every thing else which doesn't take you one step closer is meaningless. Let's say you are climbing the Mount Everest, you will not take one step sideways, because every ounce of energy is needed. Now, if you have to transcend your own consciousness, you need every ounce of what you have and it's not enough. So, any action that we perform, we don't want it to be a sidewinder.> > > > We have created powerful consecrated spaces where experiencing samadhi states comes very naturally. There are samadhis that are very pleasant, blissful, and ecstatic and there are samadhis that are beyond this. Those who go

into samadhi states beyond pleasant or unpleasant, or nirvikalpa, we always keep them in protected states as their contact with the body has become very minimal. The smallest disturbance, like a sound or a pinprick would dislodge them from their body. These states are maintained for certain periods to establish the distinction between you and the body. It is a significant step in one's spiritual evolution, but still not the Ultimate.> > > > , "vedic_pathak" <vedic_pathak@> wrote:> > > > > > 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,> > > > Â> > > > 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.> > > >

Â> > > > 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.> > > > Â> > > > 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?> > > > Â> > > > 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."> > > > Â> > > > This is essentially the problem with "describing" Nirvikalpa samadhi!> > > > Â> > > > *Â Â Â Â Â Â Â *Â Â Â Â Â Â> > > Â *> > > > Â> > > > 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.> > > > Â> > > > 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.> > > > Â> > > > *Â Â Â Â Â Â Â *Â Â Â Â Â Â> > > Â *> > > > Â> > > > 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.> > > > Â> > > > Best regards,> > > > Narasimha> > > > -> > > > Â Free Jyotish Software, Free Jyotish Lessons, Jyotish Writings,> > > > "Do It Yourself" ritual manuals for short Homam and Pitri Tarpana:> > > > Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â> > > Â Â Â http://www.VedicAstrologer.org> > > > Â Â Â Â Films that make a difference:> > > http://SaraswatiFilms.org> > > > Â Â Â Â Spirituality:> > > > > > > Â Jyotish writings: JyotishWritings> > > >

-> > > > Â> > > > --- On Tue, 12/29/09, rajarshi nandy rajarshi14@ wrote:> > > > rajarshi nandy rajarshi14@> > > > Re: Samadhi> > > > > > > > Tuesday, December 29, 2009, 1:27 PM> > > >> > > > Namaste,> > > > Â> > > > I understand the example given in that superb mail, yet some confusion> > > exist (in my understanding) .> > > > Â> > > > 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.> > > > Â> > > > > After all, Rigveda says "ekam sat vipraa bahudhaa

vadanti", which> > > means> > > > > "Truth is One, but the learned call differently" .> > > > Â> > > > 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.> > > > Â> > > > 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.> > > > Â> > > > Now> >

> > Â> > > > > As you break through any face of the diamond> > > > > and jump into the interior of the diamond, you no longer perceive> > > the facesÂ> > > > > 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.> > > > Â> > > > 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?> > > > Â> > > > 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...> > > > Â> >

> > Considering the above, I understand the wisdom (theoritically) of why> > > Ramakrishna refused to describe Nirvikalpa Samadhi.Â> > > > Â> > > > I also wonder whether the three saints, Sri Ramana Maharishi, Sri> > > Aurobindo and Lord Buddha were speaking from teh same realization ofÂ> > > 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 standardÂ> > > savikalpa/nirvikalp a/sajaha?> > > > Â> > > > 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.> > > > Â> > > > -Regards> > > >  Rajarshi> > > > Â> > > >> > > > 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 facesÂ> > > > > 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,> > > > Â> > > > Why have different people - saints - described self-realization so> > > differently?> > > > Â> > > > 1) Sri Rama Maharishi says in the experience of self, everything feels> > > like only the self exists.> > > > Â> > > > 2) Sri Aurobindo says NIrvikalapa Samadhi feels like there is no> > > I-ness.> > > > Â> > > >

3)Lord Buddha says it is a void.> > > > Â> > > > Â> > > > If it is the same thing all are describing, why is there such a vast> > > difference in the experince of the same reality?> > > > Â> > > > -Regards> > > > Â Rajarshi

[Guest guest]

Namaste Narasimha Garu!

Thank you for this message. You have come very close to resolving my theoretical doubts as far as Realization and Samadhi is concerned.

I request to answer a few more questions on your explanations.

***You have mentioned the 3rd type of realization and stated - "This is an open-ended process." That statement is enough and for me, there is nothing to understand further in this type of *Open Loop* realization. I am satisfied with the understanding that such rarest beings are the one who may last till the end of creation cycle. If i may give examples such as Babaji, Ramakrishna, various Rishis, Gods such as Krishna and such beings...***my question is related to 1st and 2nd type of realization.

You have mentioned in Dualistic type realization (which Mira bai had known to attain) - ": One can experience closeness to deities, oneness to deities"

In the Non-dualistic realization, you mentioned - "> When one goes to Nirvikalpa Samadhi, one may either come back and deal with duality again or merge in it forever"

I wish to understand one thing here. "Oneness to deities" in Dualistic and "merging in to Brahman forever" in Non-Dualistic (Adwaitic) are same in nature? i mean, When a bhakta merges in to a deity completely without any trace (For example, Mira Bai was believed to have merged in Krishna idol) and a Yogi merges forever in Brahman in Nirvikalpa Samadhi - both have attained the same end?

One more query within the above. When a Bhakta (Dwaitic saadhana) merges in to a Deity, does he/she still needs to attain Nirvikalpa Samadhi or is it a final end for the person? Why i ask this is because Ramakrishna used to frequently tell his disciples that Merging in Brahman is the last thing. Most probably he was referring to the forever merging of Sadhaka in Nirvikalpa Samadhi but it's my feeling that he was not considering as 'Final thing' for Dualistic Oneness with a Deity.

I hope you understood what i am asking here.

Best Regards,

Utpal

 

, "Narasimha P.V.R. Rao" <pvr108 wrote:>> Dear Utpal,> > Realization comes in many levels. I will broadly classify it in 3 groups:> > (1) Dual Realization: One can experience closeness to deities, oneness to deities etc and realize aspects of Self from a dual perspective.> > (2) Non-dual Realization: One can merge in non-dual Self. This is Nirvikalpa samadhi.> > When one goes to Nirvikalpa samadhi, one may either come back and deal with duality again or merge in it forever. If it is the latter, that (i.e. realization of non-dual Self) is the "final realization" for *that being*.> > (3) Realization of Non-difference between Duality and Non-duality: This is what one pursues if one has to deal with duality after merging in non-dual Self. This is an open-ended process. Non-duality is the simple underlying Truth in all, but its challenge is that it is imperceptible and reached by subduing I-ness and perception. Duality is perceptible, but its challenge is that it has infinite variety and is pursued through an I-ness and its perception. Keeping an I-ness alive and realizing the oneness of the two is an infinite process with no single event signaling a "perfect" realization. Rishis and deities are pursuing it constantly.> > When some gods or rishis are back on earth, they may come back to duality after Nirvikalpa samadhi and proceed to deal with the oneness of duality or non-dual Self. When some other classes of beings reach Nirvikalpa samadhi, they do not come back. As Ramakrishna says, this is like a salt doll that goes to survey the depth of the ocean merging in ocean before reaching the ocean bed.> > * * *> > One cannot question why some characters in one's dream last for the entire dream and some characters last a short time. It is the prerogative of the dreamer. Similarly, we are all dream objects in Supreme Cosmic Being's long dream called Creation and we cannot question why some beings are meant to merge in non-dual self and some are meant to last further.> > When Adwaita teaches the universe is unreal, it is correct. We are just dream characters. But then, it is also correct that different dream characters have different roles to play *within* the dream. Some take part in the dream till the end knowing it is a dream. Some exit the dream once they realize it is immaterial. Some take part in the dream without knowing it is a dream and become quite worried. And so on.> > 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> -> > , "vedic_pathak" vedic_pathak@ wrote:> >> > Namaste,> > > > First of all, a very happening 2010 (Sprirtually) for you and everybody on the list.> > > > Detailed article and i understand that you wish to stress that various Samadhis(or probably All samadhis including Nirvikalpa) are but Steps to reach Realisation and should not be given over importance.> > > > your message raised some questions in me. i put it infront of you.> > > > * What is Final realisation or simply 'Realisation' or 'Ultimate' achievement - reaching where, there is nothing more left?> > > > * It is claimed by experienced people that Nirvikalpa samadhi is 'Merging in the absolute'. *No objectification* state. No distinction of Obsever, Obseved and observation. Ekmevaadwitiya.> > Then if it is still not the realisation then what is called the realisation?. Whom we can call Brahma Gnyaani?> > > > * If a person goes in to Nirvikalpa Samadhi *first time*, is he/she not comeout as Knower of Brahman?> > > > Please share your understanding by answering my queries.> > > > Regards,> > > > utpal> > > > , "vvootla" <vvootla@> wrote:> > >> > > Experiencing Samadhi > > > > > > "Experiencing a certain type of Samadhi, does not mean you are released from Existence. . It is a significant step in one's spiritual evolution, but still not the ultimate." - Sadhguru> > > > > > There are various types of samadhis. For the sake of understanding, samadhis have been classified into eight forms. Of these eight, they have been broadly categorized as savikalpa and nirvikalpa, samadhis with attributes or qualities and samadhis without attributes or qualities. > > > > > > We see with Isha Yoga, people go into different types of samadhis. Here it is common to witness both savikalpa and nirvikalpa types. Samadhi is a certain state of equanimity where the intellect goes beyond its normal function of discrimination. This, in turn, loosens one from his physical body. In samadhi states, one becomes loose inside the body or there is a space between what is you and your body. These samadhis, by themselves have no great significance in terms of Realization. Experiencing a certain type of samadhi, does not mean you are released from Existence. It is just a new level of experience. > > > > > > It is like when you were a child, you had one level of experience, once you moved into your adulthood, you have another level of experience. The same things that you have experienced at a particular point in your life, after a few years, you experience them in a totally different way. So, you have moved from one level of experience to another level of experience. > > > > > > Samadhis are just like this. You are moving from one level of experience to another level of experience in a much more significant and deeper sense. Still, it is just another level of experience.> > > > > > Somebody may go into a certain level of samadhi and stay there for years because it is enjoyable. There is no space or time. There are no bodily problems. He has broken the physical and psychological barriers to some extent. But this is only temporary. The moment he comes out, again he gets hungry, he has to sleep, and again everything comes back. > > > > > > Samadhi definitely has its benefits. There are many things it has to offer for an individual, but this doesn't really take you closer to Realization, as such. Compared to a man who is sober, a man who is slightly drunk, has a different level of experience, but he has to come down at some point. All samadhis, I would say, are a way of getting high without any external chemicals. Now, by going into these states, it opens up a new dimension for you, but it doesn't leave any great transformation behind. It doesn't leave you permanently transformed. > > > > > > You have not moved into another reality. In the same reality, your level of experiences has deepened. You have experienced the same things in a little deeper sense. You have not become free from the mind. > > > > > > Now, somebody meditates for 12 years and comes out. Even after 12 years, he may not be a realized being, but, maybe he is a little closer. When you go into another reality and stay there for long hours or long years, the grip of this reality is broken on you. Now, you have come to an experiential understanding that, this is not it. Not just an intellectual understanding, you have seen experientially that this is not it. That is the whole purpose of long meditations. But most realized beings never went into samadhi states. > > > > > > Gautama never sat for 12 years in one place. Many of his disciples, many Buddhist monks went into very long meditations. They never came out for years, but Gautama himself never went, because he saw it is not necessary. > > > > > > He practiced and experienced all the eight kinds of samadhis before his enlightenment and he discarded them. He said, "This is not it". This is not going to take you any closer to realization. It is just moving into a higher level of experience and probably you will get more caught up, because it is more beautiful than the current reality. > > > > > > If the goal is set, if you've made realization the top priority in your life, then every thing else which doesn't take you one step closer is meaningless. Let's say you are climbing the Mount Everest, you will not take one step sideways, because every ounce of energy is needed. Now, if you have to transcend your own consciousness, you need every ounce of what you have and it's not enough. So, any action that we perform, we don't want it to be a sidewinder.> > > > > > We have created powerful consecrated spaces where experiencing samadhi states comes very naturally. There are samadhis that are very pleasant, blissful, and ecstatic and there are samadhis that are beyond this. Those who go into samadhi states beyond pleasant or unpleasant, or nirvikalpa, we always keep them in protected states as their contact with the body has become very minimal. The smallest disturbance, like a sound or a pinprick would dislodge them from their body. These states are maintained for certain periods to establish the distinction between you and the body. It is a significant step in one's spiritual evolution, but still not the Ultimate.> > > > > > , "vedic_pathak" <vedic_pathak@> wrote:> > > > > > > > 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,> > > > > Â> > > > > 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.> > > > > Â> > > > > 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.> > > > > Â> > > > > 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?> > > > > Â> > > > > 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."> > > > > Â> > > > > This is essentially the problem with "describing" Nirvikalpa samadhi!> > > > > Â> > > > > *       *     Â> > > >  *> > > > > Â> > > > > 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.> > > > > Â> > > > > 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.> > > > > Â> > > > > *       *     Â> > > >  *> > > > > Â> > > > > 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.> > > > > Â> > > > > Best regards,> > > > > Narasimha> > > > > -> > > > >  Free Jyotish Software, Free Jyotish Lessons, Jyotish Writings,> > > > > "Do It Yourself" ritual manuals for short Homam and Pitri Tarpana:> > > > >              Â> > > >    http://www.VedicAstrologer.org> > > > >     Films that make a difference:> > > > http://SaraswatiFilms.org> > > > >     Spirituality:> > > > > > > > >  Jyotish writings: JyotishWritings> > > > > -> > > > > Â> > > > > --- On Tue, 12/29/09, rajarshi nandy rajarshi14@ wrote:> > > > > rajarshi nandy rajarshi14@> > > > > Re: Samadhi> > > > > > > > > > Tuesday, December 29, 2009, 1:27 PM> > > > >> > > > > Namaste,> > > > > Â> > > > > I understand the example given in that superb mail, yet some confusion> > > > exist (in my understanding) .> > > > > Â> > > > > 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.> > > > > Â> > > > > > After all, Rigveda says "ekam sat vipraa bahudhaa vadanti", which> > > > means> > > > > > "Truth is One, but the learned call differently" .> > > > > Â> > > > > 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.> > > > > Â> > > > > 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.> > > > > Â> > > > > Now> > > > > Â> > > > > > As you break through any face of the diamond> > > > > > and jump into the interior of the diamond, you no longer perceive> > > > the facesÂ> > > > > > 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.> > > > > Â> > > > > 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?> > > > > Â> > > > > 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...> > > > > Â> > > > > Considering the above, I understand the wisdom (theoritically) of why> > > > Ramakrishna refused to describe Nirvikalpa Samadhi.Â> > > > > Â> > > > > I also wonder whether the three saints, Sri Ramana Maharishi, Sri> > > > Aurobindo and Lord Buddha were speaking from teh same realization ofÂ> > > > 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 standardÂ> > > > savikalpa/nirvikalp a/sajaha?> > > > > Â> > > > > 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.> > > > > Â> > > > > -Regards> > > > >  Rajarshi> > > > > Â> > > > >> > > > > 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 facesÂ> > > > > > 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,> > > > > Â> > > > > Why have different people - saints - described self-realization so> > > > differently?> > > > > Â> > > > > 1) Sri Rama Maharishi says in the experience of self, everything feels> > > > like only the self exists.> > > > > Â> > > > > 2) Sri Aurobindo says NIrvikalapa Samadhi feels like there is no> > > > I-ness.> > > > > Â> > > > > 3)Lord Buddha says it is a void.> > > > > Â> > > > > Â> > > > > If it is the same thing all are describing, why is there such a vast> > > > difference in the experince of the same reality?> > > > > Â> > > > > -Regards> > > > >  Rajarshi>