PDA

View Full Version : Mystical Experience ! ! !



nirotu
13 February 2007, 03:17 PM
Hi All:

Does mysticism relate to a pure and homogeneous experience? If so, are all the mystics of this world really talking about the same thing?

Here is an interesting extension to Sudarshan’s posting sometime back. The title of his thread was:
“Mystical Theology” (http://hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=555) where the author describes a particular mysticism based on Christian view. Sudarshan concludes that it is no different than Hindu Vedanta. Perhaps, we can ponder over this a little deeper.

Definition:

Sources that I used in reading:
Donald Bishop (ed): Indian Thought
S.Radhakrishnan – Hindu Philosophy
John Renard – Response to 101 Questions on Hinduism.
I have based arguments by taking excerpts from these authors.

Mysticism, as described, is the common ground where all religions, traditions come together very happily. Unlike “self-realization” that demands focused and well disciplined approach with a passionate longing, the mysticism is an unmediated encounter with God. It is derived from the direct knowledge or immediate insight. True mysticism encompasses all paths of “self-realization”. A common view purports that all religious differences seem to vanish in the fiery crucible of ultimate experience! It is said that in the mystic experience the soul finds itself in the presence of the highest.

In very broad terms there are many common features of such an experience among mystics from all faiths. They are heightened awareness, bewilderment, apparent loss of personal identity, ecstasy in God, encounter with ultimate reality and the conviction that all religious differences are meaningless. Regardless whether it is unitive mysticism (Shankara) or dualistic mysticism (Christian, VA), it is noted that the experiencer feels the same way.

Problem:

Having said that, I think, the view that all the world’s mystics are really talking about the same thing is as misleading as it is seductive! I have problem understanding mysticism in two fundamental ways.

1. There is a sense of ambiguity in the way mysticism is expressed. There is no evidence that any mystic achieved such a goal. The evidence of such absorption into God is impossible. Because, any created being who has become God cannot return to tell us of his experience; he who narrates his story has not become God!

2. If mystics live to tell you, what I wonder is the language and imagery they use are drawn from the tradition they belong to. That cannot simply be described as homogeneous and amenable to adherents of other traditions. Since all mystical experience can be organized by religious language and symbolism, when a Hindu or Christian talks about oneness with the absolute, he or she is talking about the oneness from an identifiable perspective that strictly comes from his/her (Hindu, Christian or Islamic) tradition.

Questions:

Given this, can a mystic claim to have experienced oneness and still be a mystic? Is there such a thing as “pure experience” that cares not a whit to what faith community he/she belongs to?

Do you agree with the assessment above? If not, jump in and let us know why or why not?

Blessings,

sm78
14 February 2007, 08:04 AM
In very broad terms there are many common features of such an experience among mystics from all faiths. They are heightened awareness, bewilderment, apparent loss of personal identity, ecstasy in God, encounter with ultimate reality and the conviction that all religious differences are meaningless. Regardless whether it is unitive mysticism (Shankara) or dualistic mysticism (Christian, VA), it is noted that the experiencer feels the same way.

Hell, this happens when one has taken a overdose of drugs. I'm not getting what point you guys are driving at. Religions are things of written in various books ~ and they are different.

Actually very very few "realized" people in Sanatana were convincted that religious differences are meaningless. Acharyas of all schools of thought never said such non-sense stuff and all acharyas were mystics by any sense of the oterm.

Are the authors saying that because a smartha hindu and a christian "mystic" were shivering in the same manner while speaking means they had the same experience ?? [:?] Ha Ha...

Finally trying to answer hypothetical questions of what's happeing in someone else's head is a futile exercise.

Truth is beyond all names and forms ... no religion can express truth, some try to guide us in a way so that it shines in us. Some do the opposite.

atanu
14 February 2007, 11:30 AM
Hi All:

------

Having said that, I think, the view that all the world’s mystics are really talking about the same thing is as misleading as it is seductive! I have problem understanding mysticism in two fundamental ways.

-----


Hi,

Do I then suppose that different mystics are really talking about different Gods --- Christian God, Moslem God, Jew God, Hindu God etc. etc., notwithstanding the fact that no two experience can be the same, even for the same one mystic?


Om Namah Shivayya

atanu
14 February 2007, 11:35 AM
Hi All:

1. ------- The evidence of such absorption into God is impossible. Because, any created being who has become God cannot return to tell us of his experience; he who narrates his story has not become God!


Hi,

So God himself should not be able to come down and tell the stories, (though it is a separate issue that beings probably do not become God).

Om

nirotu
14 February 2007, 03:17 PM
Dear MG:

Thank you! Thank you for the clarity of thought that is well written. I agree with you regarding the source being the same. Sometimes, I wonder if my “HIM” is the same as a Hindu “HIM” we are talking about! I sure would like to know!




Yes, that is my question. Take for example the sage Shankara. His drive is to know God in your self through union. And this union comes to pass when God grants the soul this supernatural favor that all the things of God and the soul are one in transformation; and the soul seems to be God rather than a soul. At the point of contact there is a complete cognitive transcendence. And what’s more, there is a complete personal annihilation. When that occurs, can he ever come back to tell us? Is there any evidence to that?
[quote=MysticalGypsiBut, yes, I have wondered about the specific religious experiences, such as Catholics who see visions of specific Catholic imagery or grief experiences which reflect comfort from the perspective of the specific faith, such as parents who say an angel told them their child is in the arms of Jesus, etc. Does God take different forms to speak? And, does God have widely varying paths? How can two different after-life scenarios be revealed to different people? Why would the Divine reveal different dogma to different people to the extent they war about it? Or is that human meddling in the message? See, just more questions, I have no answers for this
Me too! I do not have a complete understanding other than to believe that dogma may be the reason for imagery.

Blessings,


]

nirotu
14 February 2007, 03:23 PM
Hell, this happens when one has taken a overdose of drugs. I'm not getting what point you guys are driving at.


Dear sm78:

Reread my post carefully. Besides getting high on drugs, I would like to know the drug that can lead you to God! We are not talking of drug intoxication but God intoxication here.

While it is true that a person who is on drug and a mystic might appear same externally at the point of their peak experience but they are poles apart internally. The difference is when the effect of drug wears off the drug user is left with an empty hangover and thirsty for more with no transformation what so ever! Whereas, the mystic forever carries with him/her some degree of illumination (transformation) because he/she has tasted and now knows the truth.

The other thing to watch for is the ego that comes back with even stronger punch in a drug user. I mean his conflicts within himself leads to a “duality” that is much higher leading to violent outbreaks and mood swings. Where as now, mystic is ever closer to “unity” experience, his “duality” has decreased as he is much more at peace within himself.

You look for external events in the two and see the same while I look for inner events which truly are poles apart and cannot be compared. A fire that is produced with chemicals can never have the smell of natural fire, even though they appear the same.


Religions are things of written in various books ~ and they are different. That is precisely the point. If religions promote different ways, is there homogeneity in that final experience? Are they talking about the same? You seem to think they are not. Is it because they use different books, approaches, practices?


Actually very very few "realized" people in Sanatana were convincted that religious differences are meaningless. Acharyas of all schools of thought never said such non-sense stuff and all acharyas were mystics by any sense of the oterm.Let me ask you here which Acharya are you talking about? Is it Shankara? I am curious to know as to how you know he was a mystic or do you just assume? The mystic always seems to be on a different realm, which is far above human realm. Would you agree with the statement that if a mystic jumps back and forth to tell you who he is, simply put, not a mystic!


Are the authors saying that because a smartha hindu and a christian "mystic" were shivering in the same manner while speaking means they had the same experience ?? [:?] Ha Ha...They did not have the same experience, as far as I can tell. The inner event is what I am talking about in this topic.


Finally trying to answer hypothetical questions of what's happeing in someone else's head is a futile exercise.


Truth is beyond all names and forms ... no religion can express truth, some try to guide us in a way so that it shines in us. Some do the opposite.To know something shines in us, we must know what that something is. If it is the truth then, as advaitins would put it, you must know of it. That has been the quest for all of us, my friend! To find and reach that goal of knowing the “truth” one way or the other.


Blessings,

nirotu
14 February 2007, 03:26 PM
Do I then suppose that different mystics are really talking about different Gods --- Christian God, Moslem God, Jew God, Hindu God etc. etc., notwithstanding the fact that no two experience can be the same, even for the same one mystic? Dear Atanu:

That has been my question. Are all mystics talking about the same “HIM”? If the experiences do differ then they cannot be referring to the same God. Because, truth perceived by one can be totally different compared to the other. If they refer to the same, why then is there different imagery? MG has pointed out the same referring to dogma.



So God himself should not be able to come down and tell the stories, (though it is a separate issue that beings probably do not become God).


No! That is not what I meant. It is the mystic whose soul is one with the divine cannot come back to tell us. According to Shankara at the very instant you become self-realized (mystics are all self-realized), cognitive inferences/differences vanish because of transcendent nature of the soul and also there is a sort of personal annihilation (you are one with God and there is no duality – Advaita). If that happens, what possibility is there for that mystic to return to tell us the story?

Blessings,

Znanna
14 February 2007, 04:15 PM
Namaste,

Any notion of "Him" or "HEr" or "Her" is altered by the translation of experience into some sort of symbology, I think. Therefore, whether or not it is the "same HIM" is somewhat irrelevant, in that the act of labeling of "same HIM" creates a difference.

(Perhaps it is this desire to label that makes "one and the same" so hard to grok?)

With respect to imagery, to my eye, there are vast similarities much more so than differences, and these seem to be innate to godz. The colors associated with planetary influences are quite similar across traditions, and sheesh, even the Pope carries a crook/goad to herd with!

There have been many mystics who took time out to write, over the ages. Their experiential references also have much in common with each other, regardless of tradition.

The bottom line always seems to be a process of eliminating an ego-based point of view in favor of entwining (yoking) so as to be able to see in the reflection the other which is One and the same, regardless of process.

As always, YMMV :)


Love,
ZN

atanu
15 February 2007, 04:10 AM
Namaste,

Any notion of "Him" or "HEr" or "Her" is altered by the translation of experience into some sort of symbology, I think. Therefore, whether or not it is the "same HIM" is somewhat irrelevant, in that the act of labeling of "same HIM" creates a difference.

(Perhaps it is this desire to label that makes "one and the same" so hard to grok?)

With respect to imagery, to my eye, there are vast similarities much more so than differences, and these seem to be innate to godz. The colors associated with planetary influences are quite similar across traditions, and sheesh, even the Pope carries a crook/goad to herd with!

There have been many mystics who took time out to write, over the ages. Their experiential references also have much in common with each other, regardless of tradition.

The bottom line always seems to be a process of eliminating an ego-based point of view in favor of entwining (yoking) so as to be able to see in the reflection the other which is One and the same, regardless of process.

As always, YMMV :)


Love,
ZN


Nicely said.

What Anil Antony is saying refers to ego perceptions which are bound to have certain differences -- inherent as well as of perception.


To understand or perceive we expend some brain energy in form of different energy waves, which themselves create a picture of their own (la Uncertainty principle). Absolute silence of the mind however, makes the truth known to it as itself.

Om Namah Shivayya

atanu
15 February 2007, 04:15 AM
Dear Atanu:

That has been my question. Are all mystics talking about the same “HIM”? If the experiences do differ then they cannot be referring to the same God. Because, truth perceived by one can be totally different compared to the other. If they refer to the same, why then is there different imagery? MG has pointed out the same referring to dogma.


No! That is not what I meant. It is the mystic whose soul is one with the divine cannot come back to tell us. According to Shankara at the very instant you become self-realized (mystics are all self-realized), cognitive inferences/differences vanish because of transcendent nature of the soul and also there is a sort of personal annihilation (you are one with God and there is no duality – Advaita). If that happens, what possibility is there for that mystic to return to tell us the story?

Blessings,


And No. That is not how I understand Shankara.

Turiya is freedom and not bondage. One does not become God. One attains Yuktatma state.


Absence of I (total egolessness) and absence of sankalpa (as also in deep sleep) can only reveal the Turiya. One established in Turiya will not say "I am Ramana the teacher". But onlookers may say: That is the body of Ramana the teacher".

Moreover, as per prarabdha karma a jivan mukta may be required to teach or to sit idle, till the body lasts. Jivan Mukta has no sankalpa and no I sense. So, he does not teach anyone.


Om Namah Shivayya

saidevo
15 February 2007, 07:01 AM
Namaste nirotu.

Religion and the Four Channels of Knowledge

Knowledge is obtained through four channels: science, philosophy, occultism and mysticism. Religion is ideally one that encompasses all these channels of knowledge. Sanatana Dharma has been the only religion that has fulfilled this requirement to the fullest, right from when it was established in the days of yore. In fact there were no such strict divisions of knowledge when our rishis taught Sanatana Dharma to their disciples, because only by a proper blend of the four divisions of knowlege can a holistic view be obtained. And this is the reason that Sanatana Dharma stands as eternal and universal as ever. You know about the shortcomings of other religions.

Science and philosophy go together: science deals with the how and philosophy with the why of things in the physical universe. In Chapter 2 of his book, Beyond the Physical, Donald J. DeGracia quotes van der Leeuw from his book In Conquest Of Illusion, which has a very useful definition of these four branches of knowledge:



Philosophy deals with the ultimate principles and realities which are the eternal foundation of our world, science deals with the multitude of phenomena in which these principles appear to us; philosophy deals with the why, science with the how; philosophy searches for the ultimate nature of being, science is concerned with the functions and workings of this world of forms surrounding us...Thus the two, dealing respectively with phenomena or appearances without (science) and with the realities or final principles within (philosophy), are supplementary and equally necessary to a full understanding of the world.


In the same way, occultism and mysticism go tother: occultism extends the search of how into trans-physical worlds and mysticism extends the quest further into higher regions to seek the essential unity of things. This is a quote from van der Leeuw on the lines mentioned above:



It is interesting to see how the essential difference and mutually supplementary character of philosophy and science are evident also in their respective extensions into mysticism and occultism...The claim of occultism is that this physical world is not the only world which can be investigated scientifically: it teaches that there are worlds of subtler matter which can be explored scientifically by those who have developed the faculties of perception in those worlds... clairvoyance...clairaudience and other similar faculties...(Yet) Occultism, as little as science, has an answer to give to ultimate questions; it may show us the workings of things-the how-somewhat further than ordinary science can... but essentially it is not the task of either science or occultism to answer final questions...

...as we find occultism presented as an extension of science so do we find a philosophical mysticism presented as an extension of philosophy. The fundamental doctrine, that of the unity of all life, belongs to the domain of philosophical mysticism; no clairvoyant investigation at whatsoever level can ever observe the unity of life...Intellectual philosophy may come to the conclusion that there is a world of reality of which our everyday world is but the image (or shadow); philosophical mysticism goes one step further and claims that it is possible for man to enter that world...and experience living truth...In this way philosophical mysticism is as legitimate an extension of ordinary philosophy as occultism is of ordinary science.


Whoever excels in whatever fields of knowledge, his/her accomplishment will be meaningful only if has spiritual use to people leading ordinary lives. This is the reason Sanatana Dharma has given the three paths to Self-Realization: karma, bhakti and yoga.

Experience is one thing and its expression is another. Experience is subjective, real to the person who experiences. When it needs to be expressed for the sake of objectivity, it necessarily suffers from clarity and is colored by imagery and culture, because the whole purpose to make the listener understand and imagine what the speaker has experienced.

The subjective reality of experience becomes an objective reality when more and more people have similar experiences, but again their outward expressions suffer from the imagery of the culture they belong to. Culture is essentially the product of soil and climate; since these have wide variations, we have so many cultures, perceptions, religions each countering the other, though man by his very nature is essentially the same in any culture or civilization.

There is a famous spiritual saying in Tamil: "Those who have seen it have not expressed it; those who have expressed it, have not seen it." The meaning of "those who have expressed it, have not seen it" is that they have not seen it the way they are trying to express it.

A mystic experience is the realization of the essential unity, the IT of everything. Yet, when it is expressed, it needs it postulate the nature of IT as a He or She because the expression is to humans who can't understand IT. Here again, the Hindu is different, because right from the illiterate peasant who toils on the field through every level of the hierarchy, everyone understands God as IT (paramporuL, paramatma, brahman, brahmam), though to realize it ultimately, they need to resort to a male or a female form to guide them spiritually.

Are the transcendental mystical experiences of different religious gurus the same? In other words, as you have asked the question, "Is there such a thing as 'pure experience' that cares not a whit to what faith community he/she belongs to?"

Am I or are you competent to answer this question? We can only guess that depending on the higher level of realization it should be of the same, essential unity of things.

Another question you have asked is, "How can a God-realized person return to the dualistic world to tell us of the experience?" So long as the person is in a human form, why can't he/she do this?

Is his/hers an expression of Ego? It might be, but the person would be very well aware that if that was the case, his/her further progress will suffer. I think the expression is born of compassion to share with fellow humans and guide them on their path.

Another reason might be the urge to give spiritual impetus to other souls, because a Self-Realized person experiences everything as him/her/God and this might be the reason for the "heightened awareness" and "ecstasy in God" being diluted by "bewilderment, apparent loss of personal identity".

Thus I think that the subjective reality of mysticism cannot be documented like the discoveries of science and occultism or the speculations of philosophy. It is beyond the planes of action, words and mind.

atanu
15 February 2007, 09:04 AM
Namaste nirotu.

------

Another question you have asked is, "How can a God-realized person return to the dualistic world to tell us of the experience?" So long as the person is in a human form, why can't he/she do this?

------

Namaskar Saidevoji,

I think, to the above question of Shri Nirotu, you have answered a part. The 2nd part and the main part is that actually a Self realized one is no more a body.

Such a being can teach through others (forms) as well, whether embodied (jivan mukta) or dis-embodied (Videha Mukta), without giving rise to the notion that "I am teaching".

If this wer not true then even God is barred from guiding.

Om Namah Shivayya

saidevo
15 February 2007, 09:52 AM
Namaste Atanu,



I think, to the above question of Shri Nirotu, you have answered a part. The 2nd part and the main part is that actually a Self realized one is no more a body.

Such a being can teach through others (forms) as well, whether embodied (jivan mukta) or dis-embodied (Videha Mukta), without giving rise to the notion that "I am teaching".

If this wer not true then even God is barred from guiding.

Om Namah Shivayya

I agree with you entirely that a Self-Realized, who is no more in physical form can teach through other forms such as a juvan mukta or a videha mukta. But more often we get their teachings through their disciples and devotees who have documented them, as with the case of Kanchi Paramacharya and Ramana Maharshi. Even though they are not here to describe in person their mystical experiences, we do get a fair idea of them through their documented teachings, depending on our spiritual level.

However, the point I wanted to stress was that a jivan mukta is a Self-Realized soul who is still in human incarnation, but is capable of being always immersed in nirvakalpa samadhi while living the normal life of a person. They can teach their mystic experiences in person, but they do need to express them in thoughts and words which invariably color and dilute the original experience.

While this is the condition in the physical world, how about the astral and mental worlds (bhuvaloka and svargaloka)? Understanding mystical experiences would certainly be easier in those planes because there is no dependence on words and images on those planes. Direct mind to mind communication in the form of color and sound is possible on the mental plane, so the experiences would be much less colored there. And the spiritual seekers residing in the higher planes (maha, jana, tapa, satyam) are far more fortunate towards atma vidya.

The higher the level, the more the visibility of the Unity.

atanu
16 February 2007, 02:56 AM
Namaste Atanu,


I agree with you entirely that a Self-Realized, who is no more in physical form can teach through other forms such as a juvan mukta or a videha mukta. But more often we get their teachings through their disciples and devotees who have documented them, as with the case of Kanchi Paramacharya and Ramana Maharshi. Even though they are not here to describe in person their mystical experiences, we do get a fair idea of them through their documented teachings, depending on our spiritual level.

However, the point I wanted to stress was that a jivan mukta is a Self-Realized soul who is still in human incarnation, but is capable of being always immersed in nirvakalpa samadhi while living the normal life of a person. They can teach their mystic experiences in person, but they do need to express them in thoughts and words which invariably color and dilute the original experience.

While this is the condition in the physical world, how about the astral and mental worlds (bhuvaloka and svargaloka)? Understanding mystical experiences would certainly be easier in those planes because there is no dependence on words and images on those planes. Direct mind to mind communication in the form of color and sound is possible on the mental plane, so the experiences would be much less colored there. And the spiritual seekers residing in the higher planes (maha, jana, tapa, satyam) are far more fortunate towards atma vidya.

The higher the level, the more the visibility of the Unity.

Namaskar,

Yes.

Dakshinamurty gave Self realization to sage sons of Brahma in total silence. So, Did Ramana Maharshi to the eligible ones.

Regards

nirotu
16 February 2007, 04:54 PM
And No. That is not how I understand Shankara.

Turiya is freedom and not bondage. One does not become God. One attains Yuktatma state.

Absence of I (total egolessness) and absence of sankalpa (as also in deep sleep) can only reveal the Turiya. One established in Turiya will not say "I am Ramana the teacher". But onlookers may say: That is the body of Ramana the teacher".

Moreover, as per prarabdha karma a jivan mukta may be required to teach or to sit idle, till the body lasts. Jivan Mukta has no sankalpa and no I sense. So, he does not teach anyone.

Dear Atanu:
Thank you sincerely for your comments. I would like to be careful here! We have discussed this many times before also where mere egolessness or loss of “I” sense (huge achievements as they are) are still in human realm. This is where the difference exists between Adiata and mysticism in terms of the actual nature of experience.

I would say what Advaitins claim mere "egolessness" and loss of "I-sense" is not Turiya but a vehicle to Turiya. In Turiya there is no loss of I–sense but the true nature of “I” is revealed. Therefore, the loss of I-ness created by waking consciousness (personality) is not in itself Turiya state. While Advaitans equate such loss of I-sense with the transcendental experience of Turiya, the true mystics have genuine experience of higher–self. Merely saying "not this", "not that" does not point one to "that which is right" just like in any research, where proving something not right does not mean it reveals what is correct!

What separates mysticism from Advaita is in the expression of the true nature of experience. Sree Ramana may not say “I am the teacher” but he also will not say “who he truly is” either. If Ramana claims to be an Advitin, it stops short of a true mystical experience. A true mystic will say about his true nature. They will not negate their personality but assert who truly they are. A true mystic will not hesitate to say, “ I am the wave of the Ocean”, or “ I am the Son of the Father”. This is where, I see, mysticism differing from Advaita experience.

It is for this reason I was emphasizing the need for the “initial step” and “journey” as a vehicle so much.

Blessings,

nirotu
16 February 2007, 04:59 PM
A mystic experience is the realization of the essential unity, the IT of everything. Yet, when it is expressed, it needs it postulate the nature of IT as a He or She because the expression is to humans who can't understand IT. Here again, the Hindu is different, because right from the illiterate peasant who toils on the field through every level of the hierarchy, everyone understands God as IT (paramporuL, paramatma, brahman, brahmam), though to realize it ultimately, they need to resort to a male or a female form to guide them spiritually.


Experience is one thing and its expression is another. Experience is subjective, real to the person who experiences. When it needs to be expressed for the sake of objectivity, it necessarily suffers from clarity and is colored by imagery and culture, because the whole purpose to make the listener understand and imagine what the speaker has experienced.

The subjective reality of experience becomes an objective reality when more and more people have similar experiences, but again their outward expressions suffer from the imagery of the culture they belong to. Culture is essentially the product of soil and climate; since these have wide variations, we have so many cultures, perceptions, religions each countering the other, though man by his very nature is essentially the same in any culture or civilization.

Dear Saidevo:

Thank you so much for the exposition. While I do agree in principle to what you say here, I do believe, the true nature of mystical experience might be the only human experience that is able to transcend the need for language or imagery as a tool of communication. In that, the true mystical person himself becomes the expression of the language. He does not need mental imagery or language any more.

There are many who consider Jesus Christ to be a mystic. When Jesus Christ walked through a village without uttering a single word, the consciousness of the entire village was raised to a higher level. When people came to see Ramana Maharishi, there usually was a time where no communication was expected or conducted. Mere presence of Ramana in the same room brought peace in that room where even the contemplation ceased to exist. When Mother Teresa was visiting Houston, TX to give a lecture, as she was walking through the hallway towards the podium, author Wayne Dyer felt a sudden chill to his ego inside his body. The impact was such that he could not refute. So much so that he burst into tears. He felt like his ego was crying! Mystics carry a language of vibration. One gets pulled into his orbit. It does not take long to recognize one!

I would say this: a person or a guru who struggles too much with a language or imagery to communicate, one might question the depth of his experience. While mystics might use language as a tool but it is not the only means they have and they will not struggle with any. Domain of mysticism transcends human mind and tools.
In that sense I consider mystical experience is more direct and experiential than any other form that is available. Do you agree?

Blessings,

saidevo
16 February 2007, 06:42 PM
Namaste nirotu.



I would say this: a person or a guru who struggles too much with a language or imagery to communicate, one might question the depth of his experience. While mystics might use language as a tool but it is not the only means they have and they will not struggle with any. Domain of mysticism transcends human mind and tools.

In that sense I consider mystical experience is more direct and experiential than any other form that is available. Do you agree?


I do agree with you, cent per cent. You and I were talking about slighly different things. While Atanu rightly understood the intent and purpose of your words, I might have been beating around the bush. However, what I wanted to say was that even for a mystic, if he needs to put his exact experience into words, that would be nearly impossible for him, because of the limitations of action, words and thoughts, the media that would color, distort and dilute it. Even avatars are not exceptions to this limitation imposed by a form.

However, I agree with you fully, that a mystic can communicate to those around him by the vibrations that emanate from his causal body. For an idea of the causal body of a mystic check plate no. xxvi of this link: http://www.anandgholap.net/Man_Visible_And_Invisible-CWL.htm

There still is the question of receiving that communication, which depends on the spiritual capacity (literally) of the receiver, in other words, the extent to which the receiver's own causal body (kAraNa sharirA) has been developed.

Thanks for a nice, hands-off-religion discussion.

atanu
19 February 2007, 05:39 AM
Dear Atanu:
Thank you sincerely for your comments. I would like to be careful here! We have discussed this many times before also where mere egolessness or loss of “I” sense (huge achievements as they are) are still in human realm. This is where the difference exists between Adiata and mysticism in terms of the actual nature of experience.



Namaskar,

Do I not see an assumption or two? That Mystics are different and superior to Advaitins?





I would say what Advaitins claim mere "egolessness" and loss of "I-sense" is not Turiya but a vehicle to Turiya. In Turiya there is no loss of I–sense but the true nature of “I” is revealed.


Yes. That Shiva is the real I is revealed. There is overflowing of Bhakti and not drying up.



-
What separates mysticism from Advaita is in the expression of the true nature of experience.


This difference is in your perception and not mine.

Ramana Guru teaches:

1. Take either God or Guru as your Lord. Untill you attain liberation, keep in your heart the conviction that you are His subject. Live without desires following His command alone.

In the same place He teaches:

2. Always hold on to the thought of your real nature.


Om Namah Shivayya

atanu
19 February 2007, 06:12 AM
He moves though without hands and feet, He perceives everything though Himself remains invisible. He hears everything without ears, nothing is equal to Him, yet He is similar to everything.

O Śive (Devī), the world, worldly lives, and their mutations are all Me only. The devotee who knows that the enjoyer, the enjoyed and the inspirer are all manifestations of Me only, becomes liberated.

Source:
Parameśvara Āgama
Chapter 23 (Nature of Jñāna Yoga)


What I wanted to say:

The final experience/truth is that God is ALL (Vasudeva is all: as in Gita). The truth cannot be different for 2 realizers of truth. There is an interesting episode from Ramana Maharshi and Papaji (a devout Lord Krishna Bhakta).

Papaji took pride that He had personal contact with Lord Krishna. Ramana asked Papaji (at a point in time), "Do you have Krishna with you now? ". Papaji, personally wrote that he understood what Ramana was teaching.

That is what Vedanta also teaches. The Self is never separate from one, though the mind in its fancy of flight does not recognize that. Constant presence of God happens through constant abidance in the Heart and not through visions, which come and go.


From Gita
"I am the Self Arjuna"
"Yogis who meditate on me continously enter into me. I am in them. They are in Me."


Om Namah Shivayya

nirotu
22 February 2007, 04:15 PM
Do I not see an assumption or two? That Mystics are different and superior to Advaitins?

This difference is in your perception and not mine.



Dear Atanu:

My view is that these are not assumptions but the truth! There is no doubt that Shankara has combined a penetrating intellectual vision of things of the divine with a spirit of mystical contemplation. However, the experience that Shankara has of the divine can only come with an intense intellectual pursuit and a passionate longing. While, Shankara had a faith in the power of mind to grasp the truth, a mystic has a direct knowledge of God! In other words, the mystic frees himself from being too attached and has an experiential knowledge! It is for this reason, I do believe, mystics are of different order.

Whether mystical experience is superior to Advaitic one is easily understood when the basic premise is understood. Therefore, the basic premise on which all of creation stands has to be understood before going any further and that is, in the manifest creation, the highest realization can only be that “you are part of God”! While, an Advaitin may seem to find Brahman in which all is lost, the mystic might explain that everything is found. Therefore, in creation the best you can do is what mystics have shown. All else is merely negating the creation itself.

The ultimate reality is that “all is not God” but part and parcel of God. The Atmans are tiny atoms of God brimming and, although have nothing to do with the individual’s life history, which they so faithfully attend and accomplish. That is just what mystics realize when they say, ah! “I am part of that”, “I am the son of the Father” and “I am the wave of the ocean”! The ultimate expression of the truth is what mystics had. To say, God is all is theoretical and bypasses very creation. As long as you are in it, you cannot bypass it. God cannot become an undiluted being through the creation.

The reason for our differences stems from the fact that we have different understanding of the relationship of Atman and Brahman. If you consider Atman is Brahman, how does the unchanging Atman appear as limited, how can the eternal light of intelligence be darkened by any agency, since it is free from all relation? When we speak about the relation of the finite selves to the infinite Brahman, we are at the mercy of the finite categories, which is very subjective!

Given all these, the ultimate expression of the truth in creation can only be of mystical nature. Everything else is pointing to the truth but not truth in itself.

You can have a soul that can experience that direct knowledge of the creator but, first you must agree to the premise that even in ultimate expression, you are part of God, the spark of the eternal Brahman!

Therefore, in my view, mystical experience is far superior to Advaitic experience!

Blessings,

Znanna
22 February 2007, 06:47 PM
Whether mystical experience is superior to Advaitic one is easily understood when the basic premise is understood.

LOL

With all due respect, I would question whether a mystic or philosopher might care about superiority!

Cui bono? (Who benefits)

Love,
ZN

saidevo
22 February 2007, 07:25 PM
Namaste Nirotu.

1. So, according to you, mysticism is far superior to Advaita and a mystic is far superior to Shankara. Let us see, can you name some of these mystics and spell out what they experienced and expressed that stands far superior to the expressions of Shankara's experience?



That is just what mystics realize when they say, ah! “I am part of that”, “I am the son of the Father” and “I am the wave of the ocean”!


2. In what way is the realization "I am part of that" is superior to "I am that" or tat tvam asi? If you ask a balloon if the air inside it is a part of the outside air or the outside air itself what would be its reply? If you ask a bubble in a wave of ocean if its water content is the same or part of the ocean, what would be its reply? My thinking is that the balloon would say I am the same air as the outside air, only this film of material separates me! The wave bubble would say I am the same water as the ocean, only this thin film of air separates me! In other words, a mystic's realization ends at the limits of the part; an Advaitin's transcends it and finds he whole.



The reason for our differences stems from the fact that we have different understanding of the relationship of Atman and Brahman. If you consider Atman is Brahman, how does the unchanging Atman appear as limited, how can the eternal light of intelligence be darkened by any agency, since it is free from all relation? When we speak about the relation of the finite selves to the infinite Brahman, we are at the mercy of the finite categories, which is very subjective!


3. The individual Atman is the whole Brahman. The relationship between them is the same as the part of a hologram has to the whole picture. The unchanging Atman appears as limited because of the intervening form. The perception of difference is only when you look from inside the form. The outside world appears colored, only if you look from inside a colored balloon.

This knowledge about being parted by a form to look different but essentially remaining the same as the One whole, is easy to obtain. The actual realization of it as the ultimate truth is possible only to an Advaitin, not a mystic. But does the realization that he is God give a Self-realized Advaitin the same powers of a God, such as the three 'omnis'? It does, because from that moment, so long as he sustains the realization, he acts as a channel to God power and sankalpa.

saidevo
22 February 2007, 09:28 PM
In other words, a mystic's realization ends at the limits of the part; an Advaitin's transcends it and finds he whole.


This does not mean that a mystic is not capable of transcending the barriers of the part to realize the whole. Here is an example from Kanchi Paramacharya who explains how the English mystic poet Shelly has transcended the limits and spoken Advaita.

As narrated by Sri Raa. Ganapathi, a close devotee of Paramacharya, in his Tamil book A Few Waves from the Ocean of Mercy, pages 41-42:



His sUkSma rAsikkiyam (subtle, keen taste and appreciation) in the literature of different languages is unique.

A conversation took place in his presence about how the great English poets such as Shakespeare, Milton, Wordsworth and Tennyson have in many verses given their ideas and experiences that match the Vedantic concepts, in a way that makes us wonder. I gave an example from Keats, who is generally considered to be a sensual poet.

SriCaraNar (Paramacharya) said, "We should not estimate Keats and Shelly low as sensual poets. They should rather be treated as sensuous poets. You showed an example from Keats, does Advaita come anywhere in Shelley?"

I thought it over, but couldn't remember a suitable instance.

He prompted, "In the very Elegy that he sung on Keats?"

Even then I couldn't somehow remember the lines.

With a clean, clear pronunciation SriCaraNar himself uttered the lines, enjoying the words as he spoke:

"The One remains, the many change
Heaven's light forever shines, earth's shadows fly
Life like a dome of many-coloured glass
Stains the white radiance of Eternity."

"What is more than this to describe the Brahman that is ekam (one) and the Maya that takes appearance as the duality of the universe?" Paramacharya spoke with keen appreciation.

After a thoughtful pause, he continued with a poetic mind that even surpasses that poet in finding the unity in diversity and said, "It is true that the many-colored glass stains the white radiance. But then it is only the white radiance that shines as the many colors (right)?"
...

Speaking about the spectrum of colors, he said the term VIBGYOR that indicates the seven colors in the reverse order is not very accurate, because it does not include the infra-red and the ultra-violet. White starts to disperse from the infra-red and goes up to the ultra-violet. After that comes black. Both white and black do not belong to the seven color spectrum.

He also said that even though the term VIBGYOR has the seven colors in reverse order, the white-men taught their children the right order from red to violet with the saying 'Read over your good books in vacation'.

atanu
23 February 2007, 01:56 AM
Dear Atanu:

-------

Whether mystical experience is superior to Advaitic one is easily understood when the basic premise is understood. Therefore, the basic premise on which all of creation stands has to be understood before going any further and that is, in the manifest creation, the highest realization can only be that “you are part of God”! While, an Advaitin may seem to find Brahman in which all is lost, the mystic might explain that everything is found. Therefore, in creation the best you can do is what mystics have shown. All else is merely negating the creation itself.

-----

Blessings,


Dear Anil,

Namaste

As usual your opinions. Let us first be a mystic or a jnani and then see whether one is superior to another. Cannot argue with your beliefs. Appropriate is Zn's query ----- whether a mystic or philosopher might care about superiority!

That should be sufficient.

For note:


Experiences are sensual whereas Brahman, being the base of those senses, is beyond the senses and also beyond poesy based on those sensual experiences.

Only pure silence reveals the truth and the truth cannot be different for knowers. To know Advaita Self/ Difference Less Brahman a sense of difference is self defeating. One is simplistic when one says Advaita Brahman is vacuum. Nirotu Ji, do you realise the subtleness of Air that hosts all life? Do you realise that the Sun light creates and sustains all life?

Those who are materialistic can never understand that Brahman is subtle beyond the Senses. To senses only it is Vacuum. To silence, it is all experiences as well as omniscience.


Om Namah Shivayya

atanu
23 February 2007, 02:03 AM
Dear Atanu:

-----
The reason for our differences stems from the fact that we have different understanding of the relationship of Atman and Brahman. If you consider Atman is Brahman, how does the unchanging Atman appear as limited, how can the eternal light of intelligence be darkened by any agency, since it is free from all relation? -----
Blessings,



Very simple Anil Ji. Simply because you believe that "I am the body". Since the body changes and is limited, does not mean limitation for Atma, which is ONE WHOLE. The sense of limitation is ignorance of EGO and not of Atma.

Atma (Advaita) is the yoni of Brahman (Pragnya).

Om Namah Shivayya

atanu
24 February 2007, 06:34 AM
Dear Atanu:

-------

The reason for our differences stems from the fact that we have different understanding of the relationship of Atman and Brahman. ----

Namaskar Nirotu Ji,

So we agree that differences stem from perceptions.

Om

nirotu
24 February 2007, 04:52 PM
1. So, according to you, mysticism is far superior to Advaita and a mystic is far superior to Shankara. Let us see, can you name some of these mystics and spell out what they experienced and expressed that stands far superior to the expressions of Shankara's experience?
Dear Saidevo:

Please, accept my apology if I misled you into thinking mystic is superior to Shankara. No, that is not my intention at all and nowhere have I said Mystic is superior to Shankara. I am talking about the mystical “experience” rather than mystics. For that matter, Shankara might as well have been a mystic. No one would argue on that either!

What do I know about mystics? While, I only know from their description of it, I find mystic insight is inarticulate. To the non-mystic, the vision of the mystic cannot be described. A mystic would say, “God put it into my head, and I cannot put it into yours.” They can only describe using metaphors. Having said that, it does not become any less valid than other forms of knowledge. However, I find, mystical accounts are certainly less incoherent and less inconsistent than accounts held by Shankara in describing his experience: “It is subtler than the subtle, greater than the great”, It moves, it does not move; it is far and it is near; it is within all this and without all this.”

Please, understand that I am not undermining the knowledge at all. The Upanishads never maintain that intellect is a useless guide. The account given by it is not false. It fails only when it attempts to grasp the reality in its fullness without an element of mystic intuition. “Mystic intuition can throw light on the dark places where intellect is not able to penetrate :(Radhakrishnan, Indian Philosophy).”


2. In what way is the realization "I am part of that" is superior to "I am that" or tat tvam asi?
My opinion is that there is tremendous theological difference to say the least! The basis for a notion of “I am part of that” or “I am that” depends on the premise that I discussed in my earlier note. The Atman-Brahman relationship forms the foundation upon which one can hoist various ideas.

I still regard this as my opinion and that is: mystic realization is to know “he is part of God” and Shankara’s realization is to know “he is God”. There in lies the difference.

It is not a question of superiority or not of “I am that” but rather, is it attainable by any created being? Even though Atman sees God and God only and is flooded with His presence, the Atman retains its individuality and never becomes the object of its own vision. While this may be the tendency described by Shankara, there is no evidence that any self-realized soul having achieved that goal. As I said earlier, no created being has come back to tell us of his becoming God; he who narrates the experience has not really become one. Now given that, it seems to me, the idea “I am part of that” makes lot more sense, which also is achievable.


If you ask a balloon if the air inside it is a part of the outside air or the outside air itself what would be its reply? If you ask a bubble in a wave of ocean if its water content is the same or part of the ocean, what would be its reply? My thinking is that the balloon would say I am the same air as the outside air, only this film of material separates me! The wave bubble would say I am the same water as the ocean, only this thin film of air separates me!

Well put it, Saidevo. However, I beg to differ with you! The water droplet may have every nature of water in the ocean but has more worries than it can bear. The drop of water always worries if it would evaporate. Drop of water always has a desire that fish would swim in it yet cannot fulfill that desire. When it merges with the ocean it only realizes how magnanimous the ocean is that can impart in it the energy to fulfill its desire. Yet, the water drop knows its place in the vast ocean.

Similarly, upon release Atman may have all perfections of the supreme but are atomic in size, while the supreme spirit is all-pervading. In Hinduism, the Atman can enter in to the different world in a different body; it has no power over creative movements of the world, which belongs exclusively to Brahman.


3. The individual Atman is the whole Brahman. The relationship between them is the same as the part of a hologram has to the whole picture. The unchanging Atman appears as limited because of the intervening form. The perception of difference is only when you look from inside the form. The outside world appears colored, only if you look from inside a colored balloon. This knowledge about being parted by a form to look different but essentially remaining the same as the One whole, is easy to obtain.

In other words, a mystic's realization ends at the limits of the part; an Advaitin's transcends it and finds he whole.
In a way, you have helped me illustrate my point. The beauty of mysticism lies not in transcending the “part” but including the “part”. In creation, the sum total (matter + Atman) of the parts make up the whole. While, Advaitins try to transcend matter, mystics address the whole. While, Advaitins try to transcend to a realm where only Brahman is realized, mystics understand the true nature of “I” in the realm of creation.


The actual realization of it as the ultimate truth is possible only to an Advaitin, not a mystic. But does the realization that he is God give a Self-realized Advaitin the same powers of a God, such as the three 'omnis'? It does, because from that moment, so long as he sustains the realization, he acts as a channel to God power and sankalpa.

All God realized souls in the manifest creation have that innate longing and desire to be consumed in God consciousness. Such people are consciously aware of the calling of God. Such a person is so conscious of God’s presence around and within him that he could not help but have a profound impact on those in his presence. This is seen time and again when you are in the presence of sages and mystics. Being in their presence produces an effect like being in God’s presence. He may act as a channel to God’s power but that is far from saying he becomes God!

In the end I would recognize that Shankara’s philosophy is not so much of what “ought to be”, but simply the apprehension of it. It is the spiritual perception of the infinite and the experience of the Brahman leads to peace and that does not mean you have to become Brahman!

To summarize, I do view that Shankara’s realization truly is not to equate "I" with Brahman (Aham Brahmasmi) but it is the identity of real self that is devoid of false impositions. It is the revelation of true nature of “I”, which is not its identity with the Brahman. The released soul can only attain the nature of God and not its identity with God. Because, to attain the equality with the infinite absolute, on the basis of finite, is an impossible task!

Therefore, the true nature of "I" is to realize and experience that it indeed is the “spark of the Brahman” of which we are unconscious. It is the realization, “I am the Son of the Father”. Such is the essential nature of the soul, though can be found in created being in this life (samsara), it is always obscured by ignorance or ego. On the other hand, only those who live with conscious awareness of this are “mystics” and truly “self-realized” ones.

Please, understand that I have a great respect for you and Atanu and the genuine scholarship you both present. That does not mean we cannot agree to disagree on issues we firmly believe in.

Blessings,

nirotu
24 February 2007, 04:57 PM
As usual your opinions. Anyone can see that your opinions are set as of in concrete. Let us first be a mystic or a jnani and then see whether one is superior to another. Cannot argue with your beliefs which you rain on different forums so often. Appropriate is Zn's query ----- whether a mystic or philosopher might care about superiority! That should be sufficient.
Dear Atanu:

I have never said my views are always correct. But, I think I can challenge your views in light of Creation and Advaita. Let us face it; neither of us are mystics and true Jnanis. If it were so, we wouldn’t be spending time on the forums. Do you not agree? FYI, the only other Hindu Forum that I was a member a long time ago was “Hindunet.” You seem to be more condescending in viewing me.


Experiences are sensual whereas Brahman, being the base of those senses, is beyond the senses and also beyond poesy based on those sensual experiences. Only pure silence reveals the truth and the truth cannot be different for knowers. To know Advaita Self/ Difference Less Brahman a sense of difference is self defeating. It is called Asuric. One is simplistic when one says Advaita Brahman is vacuum.

Nirotu, do you realise the subtleness of Air that hosts all life? Do you realise that the Sun light creates and sustains all life?Those who are materialistic can never understand that Brahman is subtle beyond the Senses. To senses only it is Vacuum. To silence, it is all experiences as well as omniscience. Om Namah Shivayya


Yes, I agree with you Atanu. We are not discussing the subtleties of Brahman. What I am emphasizing is the nature of experience between Mystics and Advaitins.

Mystics, instead of trying to know the nature of Brahman, it is trying to know itself. It is what I call Atman waking up to know its true nature while still shrouded under the veil of matter in creation. Nowhere am I trying to prove mystic’s superiority to Shankara but comparing the nature of experience in the context of creation.

Advaita negates the creation (as a mere illusory perception) in a very abstract way and tries to equate “oneness” with the “self.” Advaita negates the sense of “I” where as mystic says, “I am part of that”. Mystical contemplation truly maintains the indentity of “I” as “I am part of that”. By completely negating the sense of “I”, Advaita works in a vacuum. The total negation of “I” is very unrealistic.

Truly, Advaitins try to expound on the nature of Brahman; the mystic comes to understand the true nature of “I” in the context of creation.


Very simple Anil Ji. Simply because you believe and try to foist on others the asuric teaching that "I am the body". Since the body changes and is limited, does not mean limitation for Atma, which is ONE WHOLE. The sense of limitation is ignorance of EGO and not of Atma.Atma (Advaita) is the yoni of Brahman (Pragnya).

Yes, I agree but it is not asuric teaching. I agree that the changes in the body does not affect the soul of God. If you assume that the body of God is the material cause and soul is the efficient cause of the world, this distinction has to be maintained. What, then is the essence of God, which remains unchanged in changing bodies?

Blessings,

atanu
25 February 2007, 12:37 AM
Dear Atanu:

I have never said my views are always correct. But, I think I can challenge your views in light of Creation and Advaita. Let us face it; neither of us are mystics and true Jnanis. If it were so, we wouldn’t be spending time on the forums. Do you not agree? FYI, the only other Hindu Forum that I was a member a long time ago was “Hindunet.” You seem to be more condescending in viewing me.


Dear Nirotu Ji Namaskar,

Your opinion, which was shown to be invalid earlier also. Very few would say that Ramana was not a jnani. But he engaged in discussions (but not in arguments). Similarly, Jesus Christ was a Jnani and He engaged in discussions. Though agreeing that neither of us is Jnani/mystic, I disagree that a Jnani will not take part in forums. That is ridiculous. A Jnani does not have to follow precepts and concepts.


For the rest of your post I will just remind (at the cost of repeatation).

Advaita Atma has to be known. That is directive of my scripture. (YMMV).

To know the Advaita Atma one cannot be a second to it.


Just for this, the path of Shankara (Shiva) has to be the ultimate. If one does not know one's own Self, then one knows nothing.





Mystics, instead of trying to know the nature of Brahman, it is trying to know itself. ----


Just the reverse. Only the nature of Brahman can be known. Worshipping the Sun is example of that. Brahman itself cannot be known, except by being it.

Regards


Om Namah Shivayya

nirotu
27 February 2007, 04:56 PM
Your opinion, which was shown to be invalid earlier also. Very few would say that Ramana was not a jnani. But he engaged in discussions (but not in arguments). Similarly, Jesus Christ was a Jnani and He engaged in discussions. Though agreeing that neither of us is Jnani/mystic, I disagree that a Jnani will not take part in forums. That is ridiculous. A Jnani does not have to follow precepts and concepts.

Just for this, the path of Shankara (Shiva) has to be the ultimate. If one does not know one's own Self, then one knows nothing.
Dear Atanu:

First, a fact that my opinions are proven invalid at times shows I am no better than the next person and my points are not as solid as concrete you come to think. Second, the comparison of the nature of our discussions to those of Jesus and Ramana tantamount to a tall claim. No one denies Ramana or Jesus was not a Jnani. You derive awfully wrong conclusion from my statements. Yes, Jnanis do take part in discussions. But you must remember that the hallmark of these Jnanis is the power to illuminate the listener. Sadly, that has not happened here and I don’t think will happen ever as long as one doesn’t step beyond dogmatic assertions to forging real arguments.

Advaita Atma has to be known. That is directive of my scripture. (YMMV).

To know the Advaita Atma one cannot be a second to it.Hmm….. You seem to believe only in a part of the scripture taken without context to be the Gospel to you. It is interesting to see your claim to take the directive from scripture, when in fact; it is not very clear what Upanishads purport. It speaks in volumes but with a double voice in describing the nature of reality. On one hand, it (Upanishad) regards the absolute as pure being and makes the world an accidental appearance (Vivatra) of it (Shankara), and on the other hand, looks at the absolute as a concrete person and the world as his necessary expression (Ramanuja). There is a duality of standpoints stemming from interpretations from Shankara and Ramanuja. It is difficult to decide which the final teaching of the parent Gospel is. Is the absolute pure being (Shankara) or the absolute a person (Ramanuja)? It is interesting to note that Christianity projects God as “spirit” but having attributes – love, patience, joy, compassion, long suffering etc. that man enjoys. When God (Spirit) said, “let us make man in our image” we begin to think of the above qualities or attribute the “spirit (God)” possessed. This implies, in a subtle way, that God is perceived as “person”. Thus, duality exists in Christanity as well.

Just the reverse. Only the nature of Brahman can be known. Worshipping the Sun is example of that. Brahman itself cannot be known, except by being it.
That is where I disagree with you, Atanu. You can never become Brahman in creation! Point me to the one that has become Brahman! My friend, Brahman can never be known by becoming one. It can only be known as a connection of which we are a part of. It cannot be known by becoming it in the realm of creation, while in this mortal body!

This is a fundamental precept and we are going in circles! This is where Advaita claims “all is Brahman” and a mystic claims “all is part of Brahman”. In approaching that way a mystic truly defines the very nature of “I” and understands the “I” connection with the supreme source. On the other hand, Advaita, by negating “I”, has truly lost the true expression of “I”. Once the expression of “I” is lost, the whole point of creation, meaning and purpose is lost. The mystical experience comes closest to fulfilling the purpose of creation.

Blessings,

Znanna
27 February 2007, 05:45 PM
Huh? I'm confused by all this debate.

It seems to me that mystical experience is beyond description, in that it is not necessarily linear as is required by expression in language. (There are some maths, specifically fractal and nonlinear algebras, as well as quantum physics, which describe in those terms ... and also of course artistic representations which are innately nonlinear, aka dualistic, in their expression which represent.)

I think this is why so many spiritual concepts are transmitted through imagery and analog, as what is seen can only be described as first derivative, not as what is.

Of course there is duality in analysis of traditions, duh. It's analysis!

As always, YMMV.



Namaste,
ZN

saidevo
27 February 2007, 09:37 PM
Huh? I'm confused by all this debate.
It seems to me that mystical experience is beyond description, in that it is not necessarily linear as is required by expression in language. (There are some maths, specifically fractal and nonlinear algebras, as well as quantum physics, which describe in those terms ... and also of course artistic representations which are innately nonlinear, aka dualistic, in their expression which represent.)

I think this is why so many spiritual concepts are transmitted through imagery and analog, as what is seen can only be described as first derivative, not as what is.

Of course there is duality in analysis of traditions, duh. It's analysis!
ZN

Here is a picutre of an artistic mystical expression, a view of a four-dimensional world, which is the astral world.
163

atanu
27 February 2007, 10:01 PM
Dear Atanu:

---- Second, the comparison of the nature of our discussions to those of Jesus and Ramana tantamount to a tall claim. No one denies Ramana or Jesus was not a Jnani. -----.




Dear Nirotu,

Who is making tall claims Nirotu?

First you said the Self Realized ones will not hang out in forums. (This is what you said: Let us face it; neither of us are mystics and true Jnanis. If it were so, we wouldn’t be spending time on the forums. Do you not agree?)

When I pointed out that a Jnani need not be bound by your precepts, citing examles of Jesus and Ramana, you say examples of Jesus and Ramana are not apt as we are not of equal status. The point was simple: whether Jnanis will participate in forums or not? My answer was: Yes they may.

Why you bring in the concept of tall claim etc, as if some one is claiming to be Jesus?

(I know next time you will further complicate this).


For others: This has great implication. Some try to paint the jnanis as zombies. They paint the picture as if a Jnani has to become senseless like a stone or a drug addict. I have seen this so often now that I feel this form of veiled attack is christian form of attack adopted by some Hindus as well. Ganesh Prasad Ji do you see why christian evangelism is more vicious? They do not care about the poor. They care about their influence only.

It is no surprise to me that in many of pamplets that were showered (like virus) sometimes ago in the name of Datta, this was the theme.



That is where I disagree with you, Atanu. You can never become Brahman in creation! Point me to the one that has become Brahman! My friend, Brahman can never be known by becoming one.


And please show me where I said "One becomes Brahman".

Brahman is eternal. One cannot become Brahman. One has to remove the dross to be what one is.




My friend, Brahman can never be known by becoming one.


Such authority!!!!!!!!! as if you alone know how Brahman can be known?

When we are speaking of what Upanishad teaches (that the Advaita Self must be known), you say it can never be known. And distort the whole logic by introducing a "by becoming one".


Can you become that which is eternal? Antony Ji, please tell me how what is Advaita can still be known as Advaita if the knower is a second to the Advaita? Alternatively, you tell me that the teaching of Upanishads is faulty? What is your pointer Mr. Anil?


Om Namah Shivayya

yajvan
27 February 2007, 10:31 PM
Hari Om
~~~~~

Here is a picutre of an artistic mystical expression, a view of a four-dimensional world, which is the astral world.
163


Namaste saidevo,
On a lighter note, this is the work of MC Eisher.. I am a fan of his, as he looks at life ( I do not call it reality anymore) in a novel way. NIce perspectives...thx for sharing.

atanu
27 February 2007, 11:29 PM
Dear Atanu:

-------
This is a fundamental precept and we are going in circles! This is where Advaita claims “all is Brahman” and a mystic claims “all is part of Brahman”. In approaching that way a mystic truly defines the very nature of “I” and understands the “I” connection with the supreme source. On the other hand, Advaita, by negating “I”, has truly lost the true expression of “I”. Once the expression of “I” is lost, the whole point of creation, meaning and purpose is lost. The mystical experience comes closest to fulfilling the purpose of creation.

Blessings,

Namaskar,


That is what I am saying. Please do not go around in circles, come straight. Which mystical experience you are talking about is superior to indescribable merging as in Nirvikalpa Samadhi and Turiyatita? Yours or some one elses?

You say: The mystical experience comes closest to fulfilling the purpose of creation. This pre-supposes that you know the purpose of creation. This is ridiculous. Is there any logic?


Then, Advaitin loses ego i, not the Supreme I. Making the I connection to the Supreme (theoretically and then through transient visions) happens on the path. Whereas meditating and getting established in that Supreme "I" is not easy. So, many go around just wanting to reform others by pointing flaws in Shankara or in Upanishads.


Gita says:

2.53 Shrutivipratipannaa te yadaa sthaasyati nishchalaa;
Samaadhaavachalaa buddhistadaa yogam avaapsyasi.

2.53. When thy intellect, perplexed by what thou hast heard, shall stand immovable and steady in the Self, then thou shalt attain Self-realisation.


Om Namah Shivayya

atanu
28 February 2007, 07:25 AM
Om Namah Bhagavate Shri Ramanaya Om

Namaskar,




It is interesting to see your claim to take the directive from scripture, when in fact; it is not very clear what Upanishads purport.
------
But you must remember that the hallmark of these Jnanis is the power to illuminate the listener. Sadly, that has not happened here and I don’t think will happen ever as long as one doesn’t step beyond dogmatic assertions to forging real arguments.



Anil, mass of interpretations do not change the dictum that the ADVAITA SELF SHOULD BE KNOWN.

Do not try to purport the whole scripture. That is beyond you. First decide whether it is necessary to realize the unlimited Advaita Self or not? The arguments would finish there. I am simply going through the motions, since you want to foist on us the dogma of superiority of Christian thought. If one reads through the post one would see that you start with an apparently innocent question with a premeditated intention to state what is superior and what is inferior.


I do not think that I am wasting my time. If you feel so, stop it please. No one forces you to waste time. Only your own gunas do it. It is your decision to debate and so do not point finger elsewhere.




When God (Spirit) said, “let us make man in our image” we begin to think of the above qualities or attribute the “spirit (God)” possessed. This implies, in a subtle way, that God is perceived as “person”. Thus, duality exists in Christanity as well.



Yes. With this man tends to think that God is in man's image; forgetting that he (the man) has no knowledge of what actually God is or what His image is. He analyses God from his own limited ignorant perspectives.

Whereas, God is unlimited. God must have made Jiva infinite as He is? Why can’t one see this picture? Only through meditation and realization of infinite Advaita nature of the Self, the truth may be realized.

And this realization is common to mystics/jnanis/bhaktas/poets. When a poet sings of the joy, the colours are different as per culture and the singers station.



It is interesting to note that Christianity projects God as “spirit” but having attributes – love, patience, joy, compassion, long suffering etc. that man enjoys.



That is why Sanatana Dharma is the Supreme. It has grasped all states. Whereas science and Christianity dwell on waking state alone. Christianity cannot answer about the evil instincts except by creating a devil --- naïve and fairy tale matter. Naivety is not in christianity, since Christ taught "Be ye perfect like father in heaven is". Naive and egotist are the business men preachers who instead of striving of perfection for themselves, set about reforming the world, creating animosity, violence, war etc.



Attributes are known in either waking or in dreaming states. Attributes are not present in samadhi. Not in Pragnya or in Turiya. As Turiya is called the Self and as this Turiya Self is Brahman, one cannot say that the attributes are of the Self.

The attributes are in the states. One who can see the unchanging substratum, remains the substratum without becoming Nirotu or without becoming Atanu (and without incurring any karma). He rises above the attributes and He is called the controller of Maya.



That is where I disagree with you, Atanu. You can never become Brahman in creation! Point me to the one that has become Brahman! My friend, Brahman can never be known by becoming one.



Disagreements are never the problem. They can be discussed. What cannot be discussed are the ideas set in concrete and the intention to impose those ideas– as is the common practice with Christians. They become the reformers without reforming themselves.


Brahman is a state – the infinite state, the highest of Vishnu. This state is eternal and hence the truth. And the Turiya Self (again Vishnu) is the Yoni of Brahman. The Turiya Self is this Brahman.

In Brahmic state there is no I. Who will create what? I is absent in Turiya and Pragnya. The subtle I comes up in Taijassa and a gross I comes up in Vaisvanaro.

The creations do not even happen in Pragnya (Shushupti), but begin only in Taijjassa (the subtle objects) and in the waking (the gross objects). If you really believe that God created man in His image, then you must know the correspondence also.

Brahma Sutras say: The acts of creation, maintenance, and destruction proceed from Brahman. Sutras do not say that Brahman’s primary job is creation. And if truly God created all rapists, war mongers (who are often missionaries like George Bush or Bin Laden), then He must have Karma. Whereas God has no karma.


There is only ONE BEING who is ever awake --- Rudra. He never deviates from Turiya, so shruti says: Rudra alone yields to no second. And shruti also says Eko Rudro Dvittiya na Tasthu. There is no second being to Him.


No one says that a person who sees his body as the self has realized Brahman; same with Taijassa and Pragnya.

Only the realizer of Advaita Turiya has realized the infinite Self and Brahmic state. This realization cannot happen without grace. This cannot happen without knowledge/karma/bhakti. And this cannot happen without hard work and patience; shraddha and saburi.

But still this striving is taking place in a state and not in the Self – which ever remains untainted and unchanging.

Atman na lipayate.


Om Namah Shivayya

atanu
28 February 2007, 11:39 AM
Hi All:

--------
Questions:

Given this, can a mystic claim to have experienced oneness and still be a mystic? Is there such a thing as “pure experience” that cares not a whit to what faith community he/she belongs to?

Do you agree with the assessment above? If not, jump in and let us know why or why not?

Blessings,

Considering that the Rig Vedic sage says that the truth is one, sages call one by different names, can the experience of oneness be culture specific, though expressions might be varied?

In meditation, does one remain an Indian or an American?

Does the akshara word, though marginally different in different cultures, leads one to culture specific root?

Brahman is defined and adorable to all. What else is adorable to everyone but the Self?

Om

nirotu
28 February 2007, 05:11 PM
Dear Atanu:

I am truly disappointed in you trying to insinuate religious bigotry! When I am discussing with you a simple truth you seem to look for desperate alternative by bringing in other religion. This is sheer desperation on your part.

First, let me make it abundantly clear to you that I am not “Anil Antony” that you refer to time and again. Upon reading past postings it was clear to me that this fellow (Anil Antony) was writing for some guru called Dattaswami. Please, do not mistake me for him just because we share the same first name.

Second, the time stamps on your posts and incoherent explanation is a sure sign that you are spending too much time on the computer and not much needed rest and deeper contemplation. A true Jnani would resign from spending so much time on computer and rather spend on contemplation. If it were so with you, you would have agreed with our friend Saidevo’s conclusion(“Thanks for a nice, hands-off-religion discussion”),
this has been one of the purest most hands-off religion discussions ever.

Third, more importantly, time and again you have proved that you cannot distinguish between a true literal statement and the one written to imply as tongue-in-cheek remark. This has happened only with you in the past.




Who is making tall claims Nirotu?


First you said the Self Realized ones will not hang out in forums. (This is what you said: Let us face it; neither of us are mystics and true Jnanis. If it were so, we wouldn’t be spending time on the forums. Do you not agree?)

When I pointed out that a Jnani need not be bound by your precepts, citing examles of Jesus and Ramana, you say examples of Jesus and Ramana are not apt as we are not of equal status. The point was simple: whether Jnanis will participate in forums or not? My answer was: Yes they may.

Why you bring in the concept of tall claim etc, as if some one is claiming to be Jesus?

(I know next time you will further complicate this).

For others: This has great implication. Some try to paint the jnanis as zombies. They paint the picture as if a Jnani has to become senseless like a stone or a drug addict. I have seen this so often now that I feel this form of veiled attack is christian form of attack adopted by some Hindus as well. Ganesh Prasad Ji do you see why christian evangelism is more vicious? They do not care about the poor. They care about their influence only.

It is no surprise to me that in many of pamplets that were showered (like virus) sometimes ago in the name of Datta, this was the theme.
What nonsense? You have completely lost senses as to what you are saying. When this topic is related to a mystical experience, for the life of me, I just cannot understand your idea of injecting Christianity into it. It is a sign of your weakness in debating in good faith. Reread my original post where I explicitly stated “Is there such a thing as “pure experience” that cares not a whit to what faith community he/she belongs to?” Perhaps, it is not worth pursuing with you anymore, as knowingly you would resort to such tactics only to charm your following.


And please show me where I said "One becomes Brahman".


Brahman is eternal. One cannot become Brahman. One has to remove the dross to be what one is.
Be careful what you are saying here! Let me quote what you have said, “Brahman itself cannot be known, except by being it.” I guess by this statement you seem to be hoisting up your own petard!


Such authority!!!!!!!!! as if you alone know how Brahman can be known?


When we are speaking of what Upanishad teaches (that the Advaita Self must be known), you say it can never be known. And distort the whole logic by introducing a "by becoming one".
You are the one who suggested it, not me. Reread your responses.

Do not try to purport the whole scripture. That is beyond you. First decide whether it is necessary to realize the unlimited Advaita Self or not? The arguments would finish there. I am simply going through the motions, since you want to foist on us the dogma of superiority of Christian thought. If one reads through the post one would see that you start with an apparently innocent question with a premeditated intention to state what is superior and what is inferior.
Instead, if one reads carefully all responses to this thread, one can see that you are pointlessly and needlessly attacking me on a religious front, while I have steered clear of any proselytizing. Not because I lack the skill to do so, because I feel I am genuinely seeking the truth in whatever package it comes in.

Blessings,

Znanna
28 February 2007, 06:19 PM
Hi All:

Does mysticism relate to a pure and homogeneous experience? If so, are all the mystics of this world really talking about the same thing?

Bluntly, yes. The Holy is not restricted by traditions of Man, it simply remains.

Here is an interesting extension to Sudarshan’s posting sometime back. The title of his thread was:
“Mystical Theology” (http://hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=555) where the author describes a particular mysticism based on Christian view. Sudarshan concludes that it is no different than Hindu Vedanta. Perhaps, we can ponder over this a little deeper.

Definition:

Sources that I used in reading:
Donald Bishop (ed): Indian Thought
S.Radhakrishnan – Hindu Philosophy
John Renard – Response to 101 Questions on Hinduism.
I have based arguments by taking excerpts from these authors.

Mysticism, as described, is the common ground where all religions, traditions come together very happily. Unlike “self-realization” that demands focused and well disciplined approach with a passionate longing, the mysticism is an unmediated encounter with God. It is derived from the direct knowledge or immediate insight. True mysticism encompasses all paths of “self-realization”. A common view purports that all religious differences seem to vanish in the fiery crucible of ultimate experience! It is said that in the mystic experience the soul finds itself in the presence of the highest.

This has been my experience, and yeah, I'm posting to this thread.

In very broad terms there are many common features of such an experience among mystics from all faiths. They are heightened awareness, bewilderment, apparent loss of personal identity, ecstasy in God, encounter with ultimate reality and the conviction that all religious differences are meaningless. Regardless whether it is unitive mysticism (Shankara) or dualistic mysticism (Christian, VA), it is noted that the experiencer feels the same way.

I would add to that hunger for sweets, feeling of general connectedness with everything and a level of politeness engaged by the feeling of commonality with All.

Problem:

Having said that, I think, the view that all the world’s mystics are really talking about the same thing is as misleading as it is seductive! I have problem understanding mysticism in two fundamental ways.

1. There is a sense of ambiguity in the way mysticism is expressed. There is no evidence that any mystic achieved such a goal. The evidence of such absorption into God is impossible. Because, any created being who has become God cannot return to tell us of his experience; he who narrates his story has not become God!

It's not Becoming Godz, it is that we are already blessed, it is a matter of surrendering to the notion rather than obtaining. I'm speaking out here, not because I care particularly to claim anything, it is more a matter of your idiosyncratic point of view engaging direct opposition, which I am more than willing to be flamed on account of. My mage friends have denigrated me as being "more mystic than mage" so WTF (if y'all don't know what that stands for, well I'm not going to "enlighten" you!). Evidence isn't impossible if you've been there, done that. And, since this isn't the first time I've heard such pap, I'll also note that one should be careful what is asked for - are you truly ready to accept Godz into yourSelves and know there IS NO DIFFERENCE?

2. If mystics live to tell you, what I wonder is the language and imagery they use are drawn from the tradition they belong to. That cannot simply be described as homogeneous and amenable to adherents of other traditions. Since all mystical experience can be organized by religious language and symbolism, when a Hindu or Christian talks about oneness with the absolute, he or she is talking about the oneness from an identifiable perspective that strictly comes from his/her (Hindu, Christian or Islamic) tradition.

No. Godz, as I said before are not defined by us.

Questions:

Given this, can a mystic claim to have experienced oneness and still be a mystic? Is there such a thing as “pure experience” that cares not a whit to what faith community he/she belongs to?

I don't need to claim anything, I AM. Frankly, I don't care what y'all call me - I been called worse, most likely at some point!

Do you agree with the assessment above? If not, jump in and let us know why or why not?

See above :)

Blessings,

And, are you a priest to offer such blessings, or do you accept Godz into yourSelves?



Namaste,
ZN

atanu
01 March 2007, 12:24 AM
Dear Anil,



Second, the time stamps on your posts and incoherent explanation is a sure sign that you are spending too much time on the computer and not much needed rest and deeper contemplation. A true Jnani would resign from spending so much time on computer and rather spend on contemplation.


True Jnani? Did some one imply it?

Wow ? Is it your concern that I spend a lot of time on PC, arguing with ignorant view which deems itself superior? Why should you get irritated? How do you know that the time on PC itself is my worship? Hehe.

Whatever one does is worship alone, if one knows that Lord's consorts Jnana Shakti and Karma Shakti are doing the work.


Let us revisit the debate.




Atanu Said:
Just the reverse. Only the nature of Brahman can be known. Worshipping the Sun is example of that. Brahman itself cannot be known, except by being it.

Anil Said:
That is where I disagree with you, Atanu. You can never become Brahman in creation! Point me to the one that has become Brahman!

Atanu Said:
And please show me where I said "One becomes Brahman".
Brahman is eternal. One cannot become Brahman. One has to remove the dross to be what one is.

Now Anil Says:
Be careful what you are saying here! Let me quote what you have said, “Brahman itself cannot be known, except by being it.” I guess by this statement you seem to be hoisting up your own petard!




If being and becoming are the same then I did not know it. I would say I am sorry. Are being and becoming the same?

Whose petard and whose hoisting? hehe.



About other seemingly irrelevant arguments: All arguments in the post arose from your following unfounded apriori assertion:



1. ----- There is no evidence that any mystic achieved such a goal. The evidence of such absorption into God is impossible. Because, any created being who has become God cannot return to tell us of his experience; he who narrates his story has not become God!




If you can't see the connection, then I was debating with the wrong person. Incidentally this was also the subject of virus like rain of Anil Antony. If you are not Anil Antony then my apologies.

You have put down all mystic experiences of ONE Lord by one stroke. And you claim innocence?
You have implied that sages who have spoken of absorption in God have lied. If you are true then Jesus was never truthful when he said "Me and my father are same".

In this regard, you should carefully read again what Saidevoji wrote.


For rest of your post, I offer love to the ignorant as Atma is na lipayate.




However, I find, mystical accounts are certainly less incoherent and less inconsistent than accounts held by Shankara in describing his experience: “It is subtler than the subtle, greater than the great”, It moves, it does not move; it is far and it is near; it is within all this and without all this.”


Is this specific to Shankara or is this Upanishad as such? Upanishad is incoherent?


Om Namah Shivayya

atanu
01 March 2007, 12:50 AM
Originally Posted by Atanu Banerjee
Do I not see an assumption or two? That Mystics are different and superior to Advaitins?

Anil said:
Dear Atanu:

My view is that these are not assumptions but the truth! ------.



Dear Anil,

At the risk of bringing out your hidden irritation, I will meekly and lovingly ask you, if you have made up your mind as to what is the truth, then why put up the question and why debate?



Om Namah Shivayya

saidevo
01 March 2007, 08:29 AM
Namaste everyone.

The debate, as ZN has observed, is getting complicated and mind-boggling. Instead of jumping back and forth (and wasting bandwidth) on who said what and how was it replied to, it's time we have a summary.

I have some impressions/observations/compilations on some of the points made by Atanu and nirotu, but first it helps to summarize the very valuable points given by Atanu Banerjee on Advaita:

Realization in Advaita



1. Brahman, as the Ultimate Truth, is not culture specific. It is adorable to all, just as the Self is adorable to everyone. (post #38)

The final experience/truth is that God is ALL (Vasudeva is all: as in Gita). The truth cannot be different for 2 realizers of truth.

That is what Vedanta also teaches. The Self is never separate from one, though the mind in its fancy of flight does not recognize that. Constant presence of God happens through constant abidance in the Heart and not through visions, which come and go. (post #20)

2. Attributes are known to exist only in the waking (jAgrat or vaishvaanara) and dreaming (svapna or taijasa[/i]) states. They don't exist in the deep-sleep (suSupti or prajna) and realized (samAdhi or turiya) states. (post #37)

3. Creation exists only in waking and dreaming states; whereas Brahman as the substratum maintains its true and ultimate nature in all the states. (post #37)

4. Turiya is freedom and not bondage. One does not become God. One attains Yuktatma state. Absence of I (total egolessness) and absence of sankalpa (as also in deep sleep) can only reveal the Turiya. (post #11).

5. ...as per prarabdha karma a jivan mukta may be required to teach or to sit idle, till the body lasts. Jivan Mukta has no sankalpa and no I sense. (post #11)

6. Experiences are sensual whereas Brahman, being the base of those senses, is beyond the senses and also beyond poesy based on those sensual experiences.

Only pure silence reveals the truth and the truth cannot be different for knowers. To know Advaita Self/ Difference Less Brahman a sense of difference is self defeating. One is simplistic when one says Advaita Brahman is vacuum.

Those who are materialistic can never understand that Brahman is subtle beyond the Senses. To senses only it is Vacuum. To silence, it is all experiences as well as omniscience. (post #25)


Understanding the Full Import of Advaita

Vedas are the main authorative scriptures upon which all Hindu philosophical edifices are built. Advaita originates from the following six great statements or mahA vAkyas of the Upanishads. Adi Shankara gave it a final, referential shape, but Advaita is as old as the Vedas and continues to evolve in the post-Shankaran period, remaining always based on the principle of Brahman as the One Ultimate Truth and Maya as his power (shakti) of creation, projection and illusion.

ekam evadvitiyam brahma - Brahman is one, without a second
-- Chandogya Upanishad VI.ii.1

prajnanam brahma - Consciousness is Brahman
-- Aitareya Upanishad 3.3, of Rg Veda

tat tvam asi - That is what you are
-- Chandogya Upanishad of the Sama Veda

ayam Atma brahma - This Self is Brahman
-- Mandukya Upanishad 1.2, of Atharva Veda

tat tvam asi - Thou art that
-- Chandogya Upanishad 6.8.7, of Sama Veda, Kaivalya Upanishad

aham brahmAsmi - I am Brahman
-- Brhadaranyaka Upanishad 1.4.10, of Yajur Veda, Mahanarayana Upanishad

Reality and Illusion (satyam and mithyA)

Adi Shankaracharya summarized all these six statements into a single statement and said:

brahma satyam jagan mithya
jivo brahmaiva napara

Brahman is the Reality, the universe is an illusion,
The living being is Brahman alone, none else.

-- Adi Shankaracharya as the fundamental tenet of Advaita

This is a startling statement that has come in for much criticism, both from non-Hindus and Hindus who are not Advaitins. HH Mata Amritanandamayi Devi explains the full import of the statement as follows: (Source http://archives.amritapuri.org/matruvani/vol-02/sep02/02mv09reality.php)

Superficial or incomplete understanding of the significance of the words satyam and mithyA, and the inability to accept the world as illusion are the two main reasons for this statement being criticized.

To understand the term mithyA in proper context, Mata gives some examples:

The Waking State

a. The earth was thought to be flat with sky as a huge, curved roof, a few centuries ago. This perception was "real" until the earth was proved to be spherical in shape and that the appearance of the sky touching the earth at the horizon was only an illusion.

b. Everyone sees the sun rise in the East in the morning, travel up the sky and set in the West. The warmth and light of the sun are felt during day, but absent at night. This everyday reality has been proved to be an illusion by the physical sciences which have discovered that following certain laws of nature the earth is spining on its axis while going round the sun and this causes the entire illusory drama.

c. Standing before a mirror I see myself as a second "I", standing inside the mirror. The second "I" vanishes the moment the mirror is removed and then I realize that it was only a reflection with no substance.

These three examples convey the important message that what is perceived to be real by the senses need not be real always; at times they are mere appearences or illusions.

d. We watch a movie in a cinema hall, immersed completely in the world it presents, but when the projector is switched off, everything disappears and only the white screen remains.

e. And now, the very familiar story of the "rope and snake" in Vedanta: A traveller at dusk sees a snake lying in his path and screams for help. Another person comes and shines a light on the "snake" and it proves to be a rope.

These two examples convey a second important message that some unreal perceptions are actually operational, inasmuch as they cause certain effects, good or bad, until their unreality is discovered and the reality dawns.

The above examples only relate to our "waking state" perceptions and experiences. How about the other two states?

The Dream and Deep-Sleep States

a. I have dream in which the aircraft I am travelling is hijacked. Fear and tension grips all the passengers, but a sage, who is sitting next to me is unperturbed. He asks me not to be afraid since it is only an illusion. I ask him if he did not see the hijacker pointing his gun at the pilot. I hear a noise and wake up safe on my bed. What the dream-sage said as illusion has proved correct.

In this example, the world is very real while I am in the dream state but the moment I switch back to the waking state, the dream becomes an illusion.

b. In the deep-sleep (suSupti) state, there is neither perception of any world, nor action, feelings or thoughts. The body, senses, mind, intellect and the whole world are all negated; the jiva alone exists, but steeped in ignorance of everything. From this state, we wake up in time to the familiar "waking state," which now becomes the reality to us.

Sri Shankaracharya’s Statement

With the above examples in mind, when we examine Sri Shankaracharya's statment, we appreciate its real meaning.



a. brahma satyam ("Brahman is the Reality"): In Vedanta, the word "Satyam" (Reality) is very clearly defined and it has a specific significance. It means, "that which exists in all the three periods of time (past, present and future) without undergoing any change; and also in all the three states of consciousness (waking state, dream state and deep-sleep state)." This is therefore the absolute Reality — birthless, deathless and changeless — referred to in the Upanishads as "Brahman."

b. jagan mithya ("the world is an illusion"): The world appears "real" only in the "waking state;" but it is negated (it disappears) in the dream and deep-sleep states. Hence, it is not real, according to the definition above. Therefore, the world is said to be mithya by the Acharya.

However, many people seem allergic to the word, "mithya," when it is used to refer to the perceptible world. For this reason, perhaps, the Acharya, in his later works, like Brahmasutra Bhashya, calls it "vyavaharika satta" (relative reality) or "pratibhasika satta" (apparent reality), as if to accommodate them.

c. jiva brahmaiva napara ("the jiva is Brahman alone, none else"): "Jiva" refers to the sentient principle in all living beings, including human beings. In the deep-sleep state, the body, senses, mind and intellect are all negated (rendered totally ineffective or insentient). Hence, the jiva is one with the sentient, inner life-principle, which revives the body, senses, mind and intellect after sleep. This life-principle is the pure consciousness that is the same in all beings. The all-pervading Brahman of the Upanishads is that pure consciousness present in all jivas as their antaryami (inner spirit).

Conclusion

No one has any hesitation, obviously, in taking the dream world as an illusion; for, when they wake up to this familiar world, the dream world disappears. But all of us find it hard to believe that this familiar world, which we all actually perceive and experience, is an illusion.

But a spiritual aspirant may ask, "Is there a higher state to which I can wake up, so that this waking world will disappear, just like the dream world?"

The answer is a resounding "yes." What that higher state is no one can precisely describe. But Sri Shankaracharya was an intellectual and spiritual prodigy. He could experience that sublime, transcendental state (turiya, wherein the jiva is in a state of complete identification with Brahman), just like the Upanishadic seers. Thus, the great Acharya could confirm and authoritatively summarise the vision of the ancient seers of Sanatana Dharma — the truth of Advaita. Before he left his mortal coil, he firmly established this philosophy by his masterly commentaries on the prasthanatraya (the three basic texts on Vedanta, viz., Upanishads, Bhagavad Gita and the Brahma Sutras).


Kudos to Atanu for a brilliant and consise presentation of the hallmark principles of Advaita!

To continue on to nirotu's points in a separate post.

saidevo
01 March 2007, 08:45 AM
Namaste everyone.

Mystical Experience vs Advaitic Experience

Before we discuss nirotu's points, we must remember that the realization and experience of a jnAni or a jivan muktA in Advaita is much the same as (and perhaps more than) that of a mystic who maintains duality.

I have collected the main points of nirotu's arguments for the superiority of a mystical experience. Where the statements were lengthy I have summed them up using my words, insteading of quoting them verbatim.



1. Given this, can a mystic claim to have experienced oneness and still be a mystic? Is there such a thing as "pure experience" that cares not a whit to what faith community he/she belongs to? (post #1)

2. At the point of contact (of an Advaitin with God) there is a complete cognitive transcendence. And what’s more, there is a complete personal annihilation. When that occurs, can he ever come back to tell us? Is there any evidence to that? (post #6)

3. If religions promote different ways, is there homogeneity in that final experience? Are they talking about the same? (post #7)

4. Are all mystics talking about the same "HIM"? If the experiences do differ then they cannot be referring to the same God. Because, truth perceived by one can be totally different compared to the other. If they refer to the same, why then is there different imagery? (post #8)

5. I would say what Advaitins claim mere "egolessness" and loss of "I-sense" is not Turiya but a vehicle to Turiya. In Turiya there is no loss of I–sense but the true nature of "I" is revealed. Therefore, the loss of I-ness created by waking consciousness (personality) is not in itself Turiya state. While Advaitans equate such loss of I-sense with the transcendental experience of Turiya, the true mystics have genuine experience of higher–self. Merely saying "not this", "not that" does not point one to "that which is right" just like in any research, where proving something not right does not mean it reveals what is correct! (post #16)

6. An Advaitin's experience, such as that of Ramana, "stops short of a true mystical experience", as he does not spell out who he really is (whole or part of God)(?!). A true mystic will say about his true nature. They will not negate their personality but assert who truly they are. A true mystic will not hesitate to say, " I am the wave of the Ocean", or " I am the Son of the Father". This is where, I see, mysticism differing from Advaita experience. (post #16)

7. ... in the manifest creation, the highest realization can only be that "you are part of God"! While, an Advaitin may seem to find Brahman in which all is lost, the mystic might explain that everything is found. Therefore, in creation the best you can do is what mystics have shown. All else is merely negating the creation itself.

The ultimate reality is that "all is not God" but part and parcel of God.

If you consider Atman is Brahman, how does the unchanging Atman appear as limited, how can the eternal light of intelligence be darkened by any agency, since it is free from all relation?

Therefore, in my view, mystical experience is far superior to Advaitic experience! (post #21)

8. It is not a question of superiority or not of "I am that" but rather, is it attainable by any created being? Even though Atman sees God and God only and is flooded with His presence, the Atman retains its individuality and never becomes the object of its own vision.

As I said earlier, no created being has come back to tell us of his becoming God; he who narrates the experience has not really become one. Now given that, it seems to me, the idea "I am part of that" makes lot more sense, which also is achievable.

The beauty of mysticism lies not in transcending the "part" but including the "part". In creation, the sum total (matter + Atman) of the parts make up the whole. While, Advaitins try to transcend matter, mystics address the whole. While, Advaitins try to transcend to a realm where only Brahman is realized, mystics understand the true nature of "I" in the realm of creation. (post #28)

9. Advaita negates the creation (as a mere illusory perception) in a very abstract way and tries to equate "oneness" with the "self." Advaita negates the sense of "I" where as mystic says, "I am part of that". Mystical contemplation truly maintains the indentity of "I" as "I am part of that". By completely negating the sense of "I", Advaita works in a vacuum. The total negation of "I" is very unrealistic.

Truly, Advaitins try to expound on the nature of Brahman; the mystic comes to understand the true nature of "I" in the context of creation. (post #29)

10. ... it is not very clear what Upanishads purport. It speaks in volumes but with a double voice in describing the nature of reality. On one hand, it (Upanishad) regards the absolute as pure being and makes the world an accidental appearance (Vivatra) of it (Shankara), and on the other hand, looks at the absolute as a concrete person and the world as his necessary expression (Ramanuja). There is a duality of standpoints stemming from interpretations from Shankara and Ramanuja. It is difficult to decide which the final teaching of the parent Gospel is. Is the absolute pure being (Shankara) or the absolute a person (Ramanuja)? It is interesting to note that Christianity projects God as "spirit" but having attributes – love, patience, joy, compassion, long suffering etc. that man enjoys. When God (Spirit) said, "let us make man in our image" we begin to think of the above qualities or attribute the "spirit (God)" possessed. This implies, in a subtle way, that God is perceived as "person". Thus, duality exists in Christanity as well. (?!) (post #31)


Nirotu's statements boil down into these four points as he had made it abundantly and repeatedly clear. I have not touched upon his observations on Upanishads, Shankara vis-a-vis Jesus, for they require a separate post!

1. Advaita negates creation, which to a mystic is a relity, though it is only a manifestation.

2. Advaita negates the 'I' and equates Atman with Brahman, which cannot happen in the context of creation.

3. The mystic's way of realization of the Atman or the "I" as part of Brahman or the "Whole" and not as equal to the "Whole" is far better than an Advaitin's realization, this again in the context of creation. "I am part of That" rather than "I am the same as the Whole" is a better way to realize the true potential of the "I".

4. If any realization of the Self or Atman as equivalent to Brahman is possible in the Turiya or higher states, it can't be effectively conveyed in other states, and this is a shortcoming: the realized should be able to convey what he is and how he realized it. This not attainable to a created being.

In the context of creation, as nirotu opines and says that the mystics experience, to what extent are these points valid?

1. Advaita and Creation

Advaita does NOT negate creation as nirotu thinks. On the other hand, Advaita teaches three different perceptions of creation, suitable for the three states of Atman: waking, dreaming, deep-sleep. Advaita gurus teach their disciples one or more or even a combination of these three perceptions depending on their level of spiritual progress.

In the waking state, creation is perceived as sRshTi-dRshTi (what is created is seen). Many Hindu Schools of Philosophy, the Western religions and Science know about and care to discuss only this view, which is true to the senses, mind and intellect in the waking state. They also assume that creation remains as objective in the other states though this is not perceived.

In the dreaming state, creation is perceived as dRshTi-sRshTi (what is seen is created). This is also fairly obvious because we create the world we see in our dreams, which is why, it is highly subjective and is not consistent across persons. This creation is due to the vAsanAs (unconscious impressions) which are the result of our karma. When we can maintain the continuity of consciousness in dreams, then the created world becomes more and more objective, staying consistent among people, but still it is only a world of illusion.

In the deep-sleep and turiya states, creation is perceived as ajAta (not born, not existing). This is because in these states the seeker only sees satyam as defined above, which is the substratum of all manifested, illusory worlds.

2. Advaita and Self

Advaita does not negate the Self. As Atanu has explained, in the Turiya state an Advaitin not only cognizes his own Self or Atman as the same as Brahman, but also realizes that Brahman is the antaryAmin that regulates the Atman. The feeling of discreteness arises from avidyA or ignorance.

3. The Whole and the Part

Nirotu says that the realization (of a mystic) "I am part of That" is more truthful and efficient than the cognition "I am That", because the Part can never become the Whole, so the identity should be preserved.

In reply to this point, I just want to present this (what I consider natural) conversation between a(n Advaitic) guru and his disciple. Nirotu is free to draw his own conclusion.

Guru: "Here, take this and have a look at it." Guruji hands over a rose petal to his disciple and asks him, "Now, what do you have in your hand?"

Disciple: "A rose petal."

Guru: "Look carefully, is it a rose petal? Are you sure?"

Disciple: "Yes, Guruji, I am sure. This is a petal from a rose."

Guru: "I say it is the rose itself. What is wrong in calling it rose?"

Disciple: "Guruji, you have always taught me to obtain the real knowledge. What I have in my hand is only a rose petal, a part of a rose. How can it be the whole rose?"

Guru: "Alright, let it be so. Now close your eyes and open your mouth." Guruji drops an orange pulp in the disciple's mouth and says, "Now answer my question with your eyes closed. What is it that you are eating now?"

Disciple: "An orange, Guruji."

Guru: "Are you sure?"

Disciple: "I don't understand, Guruji. No other fruit tastes like this, so this must be only orange."

Guru: "Now open your eyes and take a look by protruding your tongue. I gave only a piece or pulp of orange. Why did you not say it was a part or pulp of orange as you said with the rose, but called it the whole orange?"

4. Realization and Expression of Atman and Brahman

In the deep-sleep state, we don't experience the unity of Self and Brahman. Or rather, we do experience it but don't remember it when we are awake due to break in the continuity of consciousness. A seeker who has achieved this continuity would still find a world in the mental and causal planes that would be seen by him, but in that state, he would perceive the definite underlying current (or light), the undertone (or aum) and the immanent intelligence (or Prajna) that creates and drives the world.

The Turiya state is achieved by a seeker by persistent meditation, while still in the waking state, so the continuity of consciousness is ensured. As Atanu has explained, in this state, the Atman is perceived to be the same being as Brahman, jivo brahmaiva napara as Shankara has stated. Atanu has also explained that "Brahman itself cannot be known, except by being it", and that being Brahman is not the same as becoming Brahman and acquiring all his powers. Since the term 'being' implies a personality to Brahman, we might use the term "be-ness", a term coined by HP Blavatsky.

The following quote might perhaps help in understanding this concept better:



In advaita, moksha is synonymous with brahman. Sruti says "brahmavit brahmaiva bhavati" - He who knows brahman becomes brahman Itself. In the advaita understanding of this statement, the "becoming" is only metaphorical. It is not as if something that was not brahman suddenly becomes brahman. Rather, "knowing brahman" means a removal of the ignorance about one's own essential nature as brahman. Thus, to "know brahman" is to "be brahman". The one who has realized the identity of his own Atman with the brahman is the jIvanmukta, one who is liberated even while embodied. Such realization should not and cannot just be a literal understanding of upanishadic mahAvAkyas. The jIvanmukta is one who has experienced the truth of the identity himself.

(Source: http://www.advaita-vedanta.org/avhp/ad_faq.html


With these observations I rest my case. (may be for the time being!)

Znanna
01 March 2007, 05:59 PM
Wow. That was a really intense compilation. Thanks!

How does the balanced state engaged in meditation fit into all this?





Namaste,

ZN
/just asking :)

saidevo
01 March 2007, 09:27 PM
Namaste Znanna.


Wow. That was a really intense compilation. Thanks!

How does the balanced state engaged in meditation fit into all this?
/just asking :)

SwamiJ gives us a method to contemplate on the MahaVakyas. Here is a selective quote from his series of inter-linked articles that can be found at:
http://www.swamij.com/mahavakyas.htm and in the Homepage.



Validation in the inner laboratory: To truly understand the meaning of the Mahavakyas it is necessary to practice contemplation and meditation in your own inner laboratory of stillness and silence. It means doing a lot of self observation, including the four functions of mind. You may find it useful to learn both the Sanskrit and the English of the Mahavakyas. They are not practiced as blind faith beliefs, but rather are reflected on, so that their meaning is validated in direct experience.

Be mindful of the passing objects: One way to work with this Mahavakya, is to simply be mindful of the world around you. Gradually, gently, and lovingly observe the countless objects that are ever in a process of coming and going.

Remember the eternal: Allow yourself to also remember the eternal nature that is always there, enjoying the beauty of how this process ebbs and flows through that unchanging, eternal essence.

Be mindful of your own temporary and eternal: As you witness the external world in this way, allow your attention to shift to your own physical, energetic, and mental makeup. Gradually comes the insight that these more surface aspects are also temporary, and in a sense, are also unreal, or only relatively real.

Practice this at daily meditation time: By observing the world in this way, it is then easier to do the same kind of silent observation and contemplation while sitting in the stillness of your meditation time. Over time, the depth of the insights increase, as an inner expansion comes.

In practice, the Mahavakyas work together.

The various insights are revealed: Gradually, one comes to understand and increasingly experience the deeper aspects of the other Mahavakyas (the six described above):
Brahman is real; the world is unreal.
Brahman is one, without a second.
Brahman is the supreme knowledge.
That is what you are.
Atman and brahman are the same.
I am brahman.


SwamiJ's Website http://www.swamij.com/ contains useful practical tips and methods about yoga meditation, based on Patanjali's Yoga Sutra and the Himalayan Tradition.

atanu
02 March 2007, 12:13 AM
As said by Nirotu
However, I find, mystical accounts are certainly less incoherent and less inconsistent than accounts held by Shankara in describing his experience: “It is subtler than the subtle, greater than the great”, It moves, it does not move; it is far and it is near; it is within all this and without all this.”


Namaste to all,

It may be my weakness that I cannot stand statements as above, which nonchalantly claims upanishadic revelations as incoherent, in the name of evaluating Shankars' philosophy. This is especially so since, I have not demeaned any scripture knowingly.


That Brahman is all but still remains transcendent is the message of all upanishads.

And I still think that it is too much of a coincidence that the subject matters of the author of those virus like posts (so-called Datta) and of Nirotu's are the same and that their first names are Anil. I knew intuitively those posts of Datta belonged not to one who knew OM as the substratum.

All said and done, my pranams to everyone, including the Naraayna within Nirotu.

I offer my respects and thanks to you Saidevoji for your useful summary.

Regards,

Om Namah Shivayya

atanu
02 March 2007, 12:43 AM
Wow. That was a really intense compilation. Thanks!

How does the balanced state engaged in meditation fit into all this?

Namaste,

ZN
/just asking :)


Namaste,

This will be like teaching Ganesha Puja to Ganesha. hehe.

In the first state, a jiva perceives I as discrete and different from all other cognized objects.


In the second state, all that one cognizes is in one's consciousness and the cognizer himself being in the consciousness of Iswara. We less evolved beings have to strive, strive, strive and pray day and night to Ishwara to absorb us unto him.


The balanced state is where one effortlessly remains as one (and all), still doing all that is necessary but not doing anything. This is generally called Turiyatita. My Guru says that in this state one realizes one's being as meditation itself.

Further finer divisions are done, but the above three are main.

saidevo
02 March 2007, 04:49 AM
Namaste Yajvan.



On a lighter note, this is the work of MC Eisher.. I am a fan of his, as he looks at life ( I do not call it reality anymore) in a novel way. NIce perspectives...thx for sharing.


You are right, though I did not remember it before since I had not heard about this man. On checking I find the following narration about this figure:

"Plate 2. Escher Print: In this Escher wood carving entitled "Another World", we have a visual representation of the geometry of the astral plane as it is perceived by clairvoyant individuals (see quote by C. W. Leadbeater on page 274). Note here the seemingly paradoxical overlap of separate three dimensional spaces to create a geometrical space that is seemingly four dimensional. Such a geometry allows one to perceive a three dimensional object from all sides at once. The seeming four dimensional geometry of this plate is also a key quality of hallucinogenic drug induced perceptions, thus pointing to the similarity of clairvoyant and hallucinogenic induced perceptions."

I took the picture from the book Beyond the Physical by Donald J. DeGracia, which he wrote as a synthesis of science and occultism. The book can be downloaded in HTML/PDF forms at: http://www.geocities.com/ddegraci/. Only the pdf form contains the graphics. There is one more picture from Escher called 'Circle Limit IV' in the book.

nirotu
02 March 2007, 03:23 PM
Dear Saidevo:


Atanu has also explained that "Brahman itself cannot be known, except by being it", and that being Brahman is not the same as becoming Brahman and acquiring all his powers. Since the term 'being' implies a personality to Brahman, we might use the term "be-ness", a term coined by HP Blavatsky.

With this statement you are truly helping me build my case. You are emphasizing what my point has been all along. In creation, one can never become Brahman (or have an identity with Brahman) but always remain as a part of that. If that is so, duality seems to emerge from this two-ness (part and whole). That has been our point all along.

Atman can only realize its true nature when it is devoid of impositions of ignorance. That true nature is to realize that it indeed is part of Brahman, the spark of that eternal fire.

Blessings,

p.s. Thank you for your efforts in bringing synergy!

nirotu
02 March 2007, 03:33 PM
If being and becoming are the same then I did not know it. I would say I am sorry. Are being and becoming the same?

Dear Atanu:

This is an excellent topic in itself!
It can be viewed from different frame of references. Since our discussion has been centered on relationship Atman-Brahman, “Being” and “Becoming” may be viewed in that context. I will focus on that context. To answer your question in that context – No. There is difference between “Being” and “Becoming”. Perhaps, “Being” and “Becoming” can be looked at in the light of our many earlier analogies in the context of creation.


Brahman (that Being) is the unmanifest or uncreated and out of that is the manifest (that becomes) that which is created. The "being" is related to the fire, ocean where as "becoming" is related to spark and waves respectively. It is also emphasizing our main point that “Being” becomes that which “has Become (creation)”, but being and becoming are not the same.


Coming back to your statement,”Brahman itself cannot be known, except by being it”, clearly is a violation of that statement. As I said earlier, Being is what Becomes and are not the same. Being is infinite “Brahman” that cannot be equated with the finite or that “has become”. Thus, what “becomes” is the part of what is “Being”.


Your statement, in my view, contradicts that definition. That is again, if you believe in that definition!



Blessings,

Znanna
02 March 2007, 05:09 PM
The notions of "being" and "becoming" are irrelevant in that they imply a linearality of time which has no meaning in the context of the infinite.

Past is future; future, passed.

I'm no Hindu, so I'm not really sure what y'all mean by "Brahman" or "Atman". But I suspect this has to do with the experience of being everything and nothing at the same time. This would be consistent with the utter lack of importance of time and space when in meditation or prayer. (Please forgive me for presuming to define "Brahman" hehe.)

To classify such does not add value :) It is something that can only be experienced to be understood, and cannot be known in a rational sense, in my opinion.

"Brahman itself cannot be known, except by being it”


To me, this is saying the same thing, that understanding comes from experience, not from analysis.

Bottom line: make time to meditate and surrender to a state of quiet, rather than analysis!


Namaste,
ZN

saidevo
02 March 2007, 08:41 PM
Namaste nirotu.

Being, Becoming and Be-ness

The One Being becomes the Many, not by segregation but by aggregation. This aggregation does not come from outside of the Being but from Itself by projection/emanation. Thus the One becomes Many, not by division of itself but by superimposition of its inherent powers on Itself. Therefore the Be-ness of the One is the same in the Many and the Many are not parts of the One but just appearances of the One as Many.

The Atman Nirotu becomes a man by aggregation of a body to it, which is an emanation from Brahman, just like the Atman itself is. The man Nirotu becomes the person in his photograph shown to the HDF members by aggregating clothes, a shoulder bag and a spectacle over his person. In the same way he becomes a son to his father, a chum to several persons, an underling for a boss, a devotee of Jesus and several other forms that he cares or happens to take, all by aggregation, superimposition, emanation and projection, never by a division or segregation of his Self.

Whether Brahman or Atman or Nirotu or the add-ons, the Be-ness is the same, and it is in this sense that the Part becomes the Whole.

atanu
03 March 2007, 08:54 AM
-----
"Brahman itself cannot be known, except by being it”


To me, this is saying the same thing, that understanding comes from experience, not from analysis.

Bottom line: make time to meditate and surrender to a state of quiet, rather than analysis!


Namaste,
ZN


Namaste,

Yes surely. Being or becoming or any other word is post Brahman.

And again Upanishads say that the intellect returns from Him. Words return from Him. But again another verse says that Brahman is not known without the mind.

But being in this context means not becoming anything that one is not. Upanishads teach enquiry of Neti Neti till all objects of mind and the mind itself go kaput like the burning camphor.

Reagrads

Om Namah Shivayya

atanu
03 March 2007, 08:58 AM
Deleted

atanu
03 March 2007, 09:40 AM
Deleted by Atanu

atanu
03 March 2007, 09:54 AM
Dear Atanu:
-----
Coming back to your statement,”Brahman itself cannot be known, except by being it”, clearly is a violation of that statement. As I said earlier, Being is what Becomes and are not the same. Being is infinite “Brahman” that cannot be equated with the finite or that “has become”. Thus, what “becomes” is the part of what is “Being”.
------
Blessings,


I am sorry that your definitions -- 'the reference frames' are always your own creations and always changing.

'Being' (in our context) is not 'what has Become'.

Being is not becoming. Being is not becoming a boy and then a man and then a general manager and then an old man etc etc. Being is being without any notion of having become anything and this is the established Turiya state, wherein no second can exist as it is defined in shruti as Advaita.

Your part by part scheme is within the sensual domain and here pure Pragnya itself has not been known, since Pragnya itself is the boundary.

In part by part scheme, there are many parts, so the Advaita Atma is still unknown.



Dear Saidevo:

----Atman can only realize its true nature when it is devoid of impositions of ignorance. That true nature is to realize that it indeed is part of Brahman, the spark of that eternal fire.



From this we aver that you know what Atma is and what Brahman is. Can you tell us of what material the parts are made of and what constitutes the boundary material? Are the 'parts and the boundaries' outside Brahman or they are not of Brahman?

Brahman is consciousness (Pragnya). Anything that is not Brahman cannot be cognized. If parts and the boundaries were not forms of Brahman then these will lie outside any form of cognition -- Would not exist, to put it simply.

I am asking this not for debate since the scripture clearly says: Advaita Atma --- there is no other part.


It would be nice if these discussions went on within the framework of Achedyo Atma -- the uncuttable Atma. When one talks of parts one is not talking of Atma, which is achedyo as per Gita and 'Advaita' and 'ONE' as per all Upanishads. Soul is a christian concept equivalent of which is 'Purusha immersed in Prakriti' in Gita.

And has anyone seen one's own soul? If Nirotu has seen the part that is his soul, then we may discuss further.


Om Namah Shivayya

atanu
04 March 2007, 10:47 AM
-
I'm no Hindu, so I'm not really sure what y'all mean by "Brahman" or "Atman". But I suspect this has to do with the experience of being everything and nothing at the same time. ----ZN

Namaskar,

Let Rig Veda speak

At first was neither Being nor Nonbeing. (note: This is the so-called neither sat nor Asat Atma -- indescribable)
There was not air nor yet sky beyond.
What was wrapping? Where? In whose protection?
Was Water there, unfathomable deep?
There was no death then, nor yet deathlessness;
of night or day there was not any sign.

The One breathed without breath by its own impulse.
Other than that was nothing at all.

Darkness was there, all wrapped around by darkness,
and all was Water indiscriminate, Then
that which was hidden by Void, that One, emerging,
stirring, through power of Ardor, came to be. In the beginning Love arose,
which was primal germ cell of mind. (Note: This is Pragnya, the One wherefrom the sense of being sprouts as mind -- Pragnya Brahma)

The Seers, searching in their hearts with wisdom,
discovered the connection of Being in Nonbeing.


A crosswise line cut Being from Nonbeing.
What was described above it, what below?
Bearers of seed there were and mighty forces,
thrust from below and forward move above. Who really knows? Who can presume to tell it?
Whence was it born? Whence issued this creation?

Even the Gods came after its emergence.
Then who can tell from whence it came to be?

That out of which creation has arisen,
whether it held it firm or it did not,
He who surveys it in the highest heaven,
He surely knows - or maybe He does not!
-Translation by Prof. Raimundo Panikkar (Ref. 3, pp 58)
Prof. Raimundo Panikkar, "The Vedic Experience- Mantra-manjari" Pub. by Motilal Banarasidas


This is the finest, unsurpassed experience of the ultimate meditation. There are two other creation Hymns in Rig Veda one referring to Aditiand another to Purusha. Parts are in these states.

Needless to say that without even knowing, you intuit Brahman-Atman correctly as beyond time and space. Time and space grew out of Atma. Purusha -- the being before Usha, with thousand heads, was brought forth from Atma.


The One breathed without breath by its own impulse.
Other than that was nothing at all.


Upanishads and Gita exhort us to know this Advaita indescribable neither being nor a non being as the Atma -- one's own being and the core.


Om Namah Shivayya

atanu
05 March 2007, 01:02 AM
I would add to that hunger for sweets, feeling of general connectedness with everything and a level of politeness engaged by the feeling of commonality with All.

Namaste,
ZN

Pranam,

It's curious.

I was always hungry for sweet, salt, bitter, hot, bland -- and all kinds of foods. Sweet had an upper hand. Now my sweet craving is more. Can't explain, but often sharing the sweet with Shiva brings in emotions. At the same time I am apprehensive of diabetes.

Is what you say a general or a particular?

Om Namah Shivayya

Znanna
05 March 2007, 04:35 AM
Pranam,

It's curious.

I was always hungry for sweet, salt, bitter, hot, bland -- and all kinds of foods. Sweet had an upper hand. Now my sweet craving is more. Can't explain, but often sharing the sweet with Shiva brings in emotions. At the same time I am apprehensive of diabetes.

Is what you say a general or a particular?

Om Namah Shivayya


It's a general observation based on my personal experience :)

What was in my mind at the time I wrote was the intense craving for sweets I have after extended meditation and the memory of a vanilla milkshake after a particularly intense 4 hour or so session with Twin.


Namaste,
ZN

atanu
05 March 2007, 08:26 AM
It's a general observation based on my personal experience :)

What was in my mind at the time I wrote was the intense craving for sweets I have after extended meditation and the memory of a vanilla milkshake after a particularly intense 4 hour or so session with Twin.


Namaste,
ZN

Yes, after the meditation. May be energy replenishing or surfacing of the craving?

Regards,

Znanna
05 March 2007, 05:13 PM
Yes, after the meditation. May be energy replenishing or surfacing of the craving?

Regards,

Probably both - I've found after intense psychic/telepathic work of any type, that I crave calories ... for me in this instance, it pertains to the entwined meditations with Twin (as are telepathic). The sweetness of the milkshake was enhanced by the heightened sensitivity; I don't know if that is the surfacing of the craving or the acceptance of the craving :)

One thing for sure, it was the *best* vanilla milkshake ever hehe.



Namaste,

ZN
/neglect none

atanu
08 March 2007, 12:08 AM
Probably both - I've found after intense psychic/telepathic work of any type, that I crave calories ... for me in this instance, it pertains to the entwined meditations with Twin (as are telepathic). The sweetness of the milkshake was enhanced by the heightened sensitivity; I don't know if that is the surfacing of the craving or the acceptance of the craving :)

One thing for sure, it was the *best* vanilla milkshake ever hehe.



Namaste,

ZN



Sometimes I make Halwa (a home made sweet) and share it with Him at middle of the night. This always leads to ovrer eating and acidity. But the taste and the flavour --- indescribable.





/neglect none



neglect none?

Social Sanction?


Om Namah Shivayya