PDA

View Full Version : The Taboo of Enlightenment



Onkara
09 October 2009, 01:47 PM
It appears to me that it is almost a taboo for a person to say they are a jivanmukta (self-realised or enlightened).

Perhaps to label oneself as enlightened would be to infer that individuals do exist (by the fact that we are different) and that an enlightened person should know better than to hint at such a thing.

It of course can be said that there is no such thing as an individual or enlightenment. It is avidya and Maya that veils. It does not mean that those who believe they are an individual will change on being told this, they may still feel a Guru is required.

Do we not risk stagnation as we wait for new fresh Gurus with the courage to tell the world they are enlightened to come along?

However most people refer to their Guru, so there must be people who have stepped up and offered their service.

I offer this slightly controversial post as I find the topic is one which is not so common and I would like to confirm if it is really a taboo to be a Jivanmukta in your opinion?

yajvan
09 October 2009, 08:42 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~

Namasté snip



It appears to me that it is almost a taboo for a person to say they are a jivanmukta (self-realised or enlightened).

Perhaps to label oneself as enlightened would be to infer that individuals do exist (by the fact that we are different) and that an enlightened person should know better than to hint at such a thing.


humility... this is key. When my teacher would be asked, what state of consciousness are you in, he would always say , waking state.

praṇām

atanu
09 October 2009, 11:35 PM
It appears to me that it is almost a taboo for a person to say they are a jivanmukta (self-realised or enlightened).

Perhaps to label oneself as enlightened would be to infer that individuals do exist (by the fact that we are different) and that an enlightened person should know better than to hint at such a thing.

It of course can be said that there is no such thing as an individual or enlightenment. It is avidya and Maya that veils. It does not mean that those who believe they are an individual will change on being told this, they may still feel a Guru is required.

Do we not risk stagnation as we wait for new fresh Gurus with the courage to tell the world they are enlightened to come along?

However most people refer to their Guru, so there must be people who have stepped up and offered their service.

I offer this slightly controversial post as I find the topic is one which is not so common and I would like to confirm if it is really a taboo to be a Jivanmukta in your opinion?

Namaste snip,

Jivanmukta and the enlightened may not be of the same level. A sadhaka who has experienced samadhi time and again is enlightened, but may come down in the dualistic mode during non-samadhi periods. Jivanmukta, on the other hand has no mind of his own or has a mind that is only sattwik, same as Vishnu and all pervasive.

This is an interesting point. I do not think that I have heard any known Guru or a Rishi to have claimed "I am Jivanmukta", except in the meditative mode of "Soham" etc. I think, in general, that such statements can only come from the fraudulent, who do not know the Kena teachings, shown to us by Brahman in a post. Jivamukti is unbroken knowledge of Brahman. But Kena Upanishad plainly says that one who says "I know Brahman" does not know Brahman.

When one is speaking, one is already in dual mode. True Jivanmukta will not lose the abidance in the Turya ever, even while speaking (as if) in a dualistic mode. They cannot utter "I am Jivan mukta", implying "You are not a jivanmukta". It is an impossibilty. Jivan Mukta cannot take disciples either. Jivan mukta cannot see the other. When scripture says "You are that", it means that Vishnu, the indweller, is the full, and is not different from That. Vishnu's highest plane is That only. Vishnu proclaims "I am cipivista" or "I am That". But it is known in scripture that even Vishnu falls on account of pride.

I think, true jivan mukti is rarest. Videha mukti may be more probable.

Om Namah Shivaya

Eastern Mind
10 October 2009, 09:12 AM
Vanakkam all:

Here in this lower level of ignorance we really have no idea whats going on up there in higher chakras.

I agree with most everything that has been said already but wish to add a bit more from my experience.

Re: "stepping up and offering their services." Traditionally, this is not how it happens. A teacher needs students first. Its not a proclamation. Students beg to be taught because they feel or see that this person has something they don't have. Because such a realised person doesn't have desires, fortunately for the rest of us, they agree to become teachers in this way.

Rarely does a teacher state that they are enlightened. The students and devotees just start to gather around and it becomes an assumption, and the students do the labeling. This is not hard and fast. I have seen it come up in biographies especially. Think "Autobiography of a Yogi" . And here the purpose is to tell of the path, and the end, again just to benefit the devotees knowledge of what is coming for them, not as an ego boost.

Snip, the whole area of Guru discussion can be controversial. Just like comparative religion can be. The devotees can and do get caught up in the "My Guru is better that your Guru" stupidity, from their own egos. I see it no differently than village mentality. The wise would never criticise any Guru, self-proclaimed or otherwise. There is really no point to it. (I guess there might be exceptions, especially in legal matters, if you were directly involved, in the same way for example it is against the law not to report child abuse, as a school teacher, if you become aware.)

Aum Namasivaya

Eastern Mind
10 October 2009, 11:14 AM
Snip: After re-reading your post, further thoughts arise. I think (perhaps I'm wrong) you have seen people jump all over others who make this claim. I myself have probably done it. We are both rational and emotional beings. Although at a deeper level it is certainly not wise to jump on such, because we really don't know, and there's no point, a part of us wants to say something.

The main reason, for me, is that self-realisation begets wisdom. This is the assumption. So when a person comes on here or elsewhere making such claims, and then follows it up with petty argument, name-calling, illogical arguments, etc., our rational minds just come to the rational conclusion that he or she can't be what they say they are. But our emotions are also insulted. Most of us have a certain pride, a certain dignity, regarding the ancient path called Sanatana Dharma, even reflected in the thread 'I am a Hindu". So in a way this person insults all of us, by making such claims, because it makes all of us look like fools, even though they may indeed be speaking the truth.


Aum Namasivaya

Onkara
10 October 2009, 05:17 PM
Thank you Yajvan, Atanu and Eastern Mind
Your posts are filled with depth and brimming with new perspectives that it is difficult to find a place to begin in reply. :)

I have offered some thoughts in reply below yours:


This is an interesting point. I do not think that I have heard any known Guru or a Rishi to have claimed "I am Jivanmukta", except in the meditative mode of "Soham" etc. I think, in general, that such statements can only come from the fraudulent, who do not know the Kena teachings, shown to us by Brahman in a post. Jivamukti is unbroken knowledge of Brahman. But Kena Upanishad plainly says that one who says "I know Brahman" does not know Brahman. .

“I know Brahman” implies there is an “I” to know. Brahman is known to Brahman. Brahman must be known, otherwise the state of a Jivanmutkta would still be in ignorance, would it not? The difference is that the Jivanmukta no longer sees a separation. I think this too is captured in your following sentence, i.e. “They cannot utter “I am Jivan Mukta”” nor do they see others. You say this below:


When one is speaking, one is already in dual mode. True Jivanmukta will not lose the abidance in the Turya ever, even while speaking (as if) in a dualistic mode. They cannot utter "I am Jivan mukta", implying "You are not a jivanmukta". It is an impossibility. Jivan Mukta cannot take disciples either. Jivan mukta cannot see the other. When scripture says "You are that", it means that Vishnu, the indweller, is the full, and is not different from That. Vishnu's highest plane is That only. Vishnu proclaims "I am cipivista" or "I am That". But it is known in scripture that even Vishnu falls on account of pride. .

There is some deep insight you share here. When we agree that they “cannot take disciples” The question arises, why does the Self (Brahman) assist the Self? Why does the Self continue to be interested in its Self? Why doesn't the Self-enlightened man take up gardening and forget his Sanskrit?


Rarely does a teacher state that they are enlightened. The students and devotees just start to gather around and it becomes an assumption, and the students do the labelling. This is not hard and fast. I have seen it come up in biographies especially. Think "Autobiography of a Yogi" . And here the purpose is to tell of the path, and the end, again just to benefit the devotees knowledge of what is coming for them, not as an ego boost. .

I agree, it is true in my observation that devotees gather to listen. None the less the question arises in the mind; “Is this person before me enlightened?”. As you say, this is a controversial topic and is touched upon by Gurus and authors. It is the words and actions which attract those who are searching. There is something of truth in what is being said that distinguishes it from those who don't, perhaps?


The main reason, for me, is that self-realisation begets wisdom. This is the assumption. So when a person comes on here or elsewhere making such claims, and then follows it up with petty argument, name-calling, illogical arguments, etc., our rational minds just come to the rational conclusion that he or she can't be what they say they are. But our emotions are also insulted. Most of us have a certain pride, a certain dignity, regarding the ancient path called Sanatana Dharma, even reflected in the thread 'I am a Hindu". So in a way this person insults all of us, by making such claims, because it makes all of us look like fools, even though they may indeed be speaking the truth. .

I don’t see any logic in why a Self-realised person would need to use name calling and petty arguments; both require duality to be of value. The self-realised person is free from duality. We have already agreed that the Self-realised person has nothing to gain (no desire).

Yes, we do feel the pangs of our emotions and pride when another person claims outright that they have something that another is finding so hard to grasp after so much searching. It is an interesting paradox in that the Self-Realised will need to face the barrier of the aspirants ego more so than someone who says they are a searcher. I would go as far as to say that a fellow searcher would be welcomed into the club, whilst a person claiming to be enlightened will need to past a test first.

Additionally I see no logic for a Self-realised person to refuse help or be offended if they are met with hostility. The Self-realised person no longer has anything to defend and abudance to give. The aspirant’s hostility that is testing the claimant as genuine. Deep down we seem to know how a true guru should act, perhaps? At the absolute level it is the Self (Self veiled by ignorance) testing the Self (Brahman) in its ability to show Its true Self.

Again, thank you for your input. Feel free to comment or debate the above.

saidevo
10 October 2009, 11:26 PM
namaste Snip.

• There is a proverb in Tamil that echoes the words of the kena upanishad that atanu pointed out: 'kaNDavar viNDilar, viNDavar kaNdilar'--'one who has seen it won't talk about it; one who talks about has not seen it." A Reader's Digest article said this about lighning: "If you have seen it, you have missed it."

• Your question about a jIvanmukta expressing itself as such, points to the fundamental question: why should Brahman/Atman/Self create the world at all? Vedas say that It/Brahman 'willed' to 'live and multiply' instead of 'just be', so Creation happened. Since sRShTi--creation is Brahman's 'breathing out', there will be a corresponding praLaya--dissolution, its 'breathing in'.

• You have provided a good answer to your own question in your last post:
"At the absolute level it is the Self (Self veiled by ignorance) testing the Self (Brahman) in its ability to show Its true Self."

Perhaps I can slighly modify this answer as below:

At the absolute level, it is not that the Ignorant self testing the Self (that remains always enlightened). The cloud that veils the Sun cannot and does not test the light of the Sun because the cloud itself is the making--or rather lIlA--sport of the Sun; it has no independent chaitanya--consciousness to exist as a separate entity. The cloud eventually dissipates in the tApana--burning up and chaitanya--light/intelligence/consciousness of the Sun.

• The answer is perhaps in the nature of the Light: to shine out and through. A jivanmukta loses his jIvAtma as it merges in the paramAtman, and in the process it becomes a source of light and acquires the tendency to shine out and through the surrounding scum of jivAtmas: they are lightened/enlightened/delighted to the extent they can absorb and retain the light--or rather purify their own scum to let the inner light shine through. Since the jIvAtma is always conditioned by the ego--smaller self--which is essentially its own identity, they treat themselves as discrete entities in the darkness of advidyaA--ignorance, even doubt, compare and contrast the light of what they perceive as one guru with another.

• And finally, there is the 'lIlA' of the jIvanmukta as it needs to move with the surrounding jIvAtmas--or rather express its light through them. So even if an acclaimed jIvanmukta declares itself to be as such, or has disciples and devotees surrounding it, it is not a deficiency, only a sportive jesture.

rainycity
11 October 2009, 03:07 AM
Basically I don't trust anyone who claims to be enlightened or is said to be enlightened. I don't think that gurus are really supposed to have publicity, fame and thousands of followers. Even lesser known ones can't be trusted.
In the old days a sadhaka would take 12 years to find a guru. Nowadays there are gurus everywhere willing to take anyone on. There are too many narcissistic gurus out there who a conmen, frauds, and madmen.

Onkara
11 October 2009, 06:09 AM
Namaste Rainycity and Saidevo. Thanks for your answers, I am going to reiterate them in context with feedback:


Basically I don't trust anyone who claims to be enlightened or is said to be enlightened. I don't think that gurus are really supposed to have publicity, fame and thousands of followers. Even lesser known ones can't be trusted.

In the old days a sadhaka would take 12 years to find a guru. Nowadays there are gurus everywhere willing to take anyone on. There are too many narcissistic gurus out there who a conmen, frauds, and madmen.

Rainycity, I feel you capture well the sensation and concerns for the serious searcher. The person announcing themselves to be enlightened will be doubted by the searcher.

The enlightened person will be no different in understanding this, having once been a searcher. Having reached the state of sat-chit-ananda there is no desire to help others from an individual point of view, no desire for money, fame or thanks.

I feel it is the jIvanmukta’s lack of desire plus the knowing that they will only cause more superstition for the genuine searcher which stops them from speaking out loud about their liberation. This understanding has lead to the Tamil proverb which is shared by Saidevo, here below:




• There is a proverb in Tamil that echoes the words of the kena upanishad that atanu pointed out: 'kaNDavar viNDilar, viNDavar kaNdilar'--'one who has seen it won't talk about it; one who talks about has not seen it." A Reader's Digest article said this about lighning: "If you have seen it, you have missed it."

Clearly it is spoken about or we would never have known the Gurus and Saints such as Sri Shankaracharya. However the proverb explains that there is a hesitation and that hestiation comes when one truly knows. (I expect some comments to be raised on this :) )

So why does the Enlightened person extend their support? Saidevo’s answer satisfies me. It is the behaviour of the jIvanmukta is the microcosm of the macrocosm (my embellishment) i.e. the will to be, to create and improve on itself:



• Your question about a jIvanmukta expressing itself as such, points to the fundamental question: why should Brahman/Atman/Self create the world at all? Vedas say that It/Brahman 'willed' to 'live and multiply' instead of 'just be', so Creation happened. Since sRShTi--creation is Brahman's 'breathing out', there will be a corresponding praLaya--dissolution, its 'breathing in'.

The jIvanmukta acts as the Self wills also.

We move on to better understand the nature of the search from the position of the Absolute, thanks to Saidevo’s analysis below:



• At the absolute level, it is not that the Ignorant self testing the Self (that remains always enlightened). The cloud that veils the Sun cannot and does not test the light of the Sun because the cloud itself is the making--or rather lIlA--sport of the Sun; it has no independent chaitanya--consciousness to exist as a separate entity. The cloud eventually dissipates in the tApana--burning up and chaitanya--light/intelligence/consciousness of the Sun.

This is much better than the example I provide, as it shows that the only thing obscuring the light is a) just a temporary unreal factor and b) it is a factor created by the Self which is surpassed when the Self (our true nature) shows Itself. This explanation helps the searcher as it implies there is hope in realistation that which veils is not real and none other than the Self i.e. Maya/avidyA.



• The answer is perhaps in the nature of the Light: to shine out and through. A jivanmukta loses his jIvAtma as it merges in the paramAtman, and in the process it becomes a source of light and acquires the tendency to shine out and through the surrounding scum of jivAtmas: they are lightened/enlightened/delighted to the extent they can absorb and retain the light--or rather purify their own scum to let the inner light shine through. Since the jIvAtma is always conditioned by the ego--smaller self--which is essentially its own identity, they treat themselves as discrete entities in the darkness of advidyaA--ignorance, even doubt, compare and contrast the light of what they perceive as one guru with another.

Excellent! So it is the Ego (mind) which causes the Taboo of Enlightenment as it is the Ego which raises the question “I doubt how this person before me can be a true Guru?” It is the Ego which adds to the illusion of individuality and hence causes the “me” and “mine” giving the sensation that there is something to obtain from the Guru which they themselves do not have.



• And finally, there is the 'lIlA' of the jIvanmukta as it needs to move with the surrounding jIvAtmas--or rather express its light through them. So even if an acclaimed jIvanmukta declares itself to be as such, or has disciples and devotees surrounding it, it is not a deficiency, only a sportive jesture.

When the above is known the individual is well on the path to understanding that all that happens is because it arises in the Self. Can we also say that in the first steps the aspirant has little more than faith (trial and error) in the Guru in hope that the light of the Self starts to break through the mist of ignorance.

To conclude:
We are now much further on that my original post. The questions are being answered (very well in fact) and I will attempt to summarise that we can say that the nature of the jIvanmukta is such that it is beyond the problems I raised in the original post. So it is not a Taboo except for the searcher who is still in a dual world of “me” versus “you(Guru)” and the doubt which comes with dualism.

Thank you!

devotee
11 October 2009, 07:24 AM
Namaste Snip,



However the proverb explains that there is a hesitation and that hestiation comes when one truly knows. (I expect some comments to be raised on this :) )


No, I don't think it is because of hesitation. Hesitation means attaching with the entity which may hesitate. So, this can't be.

This may be for a different reason :

a) The individual self, a false identification, must fall on enlightenment. So, if someone says that "he has seen" ... who is "he" who saw & "what" was it which was seen ? There is no difference between the seer & seen at that stage. "Thou are that" ====> That & Thou are not different ! The SELF alone exists ... then who is seeing & what is being seen ?? Any knowledge or seeing means duality.
b) Again the Self in its pure state i.e. the fourth state is beyond all descriptions. It cannot be formulated in words. It is described only through negation - "Neti-Neti". So, how can it be described when it it is beyond all descriptions ?


OM

saidevo
11 October 2009, 08:43 AM
namaste devotee.

I would like to slightly differ from the presentation of a Self-Realized you have given above:

Although turIya is popularly understood to be a fourth state beyond jAgrat--waking, svapna--dreaming and suShupti--deep sleep states of our existence, the term turIya also means 'that which comprises of four parts', so the state of turIya pervades all the other three states, like the sandhi--meeting of day and night, in and out breathing, clock ticks and so on.

The prANa that stirs jIvAtmas originates right from the Atman--Self because of its lIlA, so a jnAni--Self-Realized, who subsists in turIya is also aware of the other three states, so long as he resides in a body: like a normal human, he is awake talking and laughing and singing, he works through the dreams of other jIvAtmas and has his daily hours of deep sleep. The only difference between such a jnAni and an ordinary person is that the jnAni, because he subsists in turIya, is aware that he is waking, dreaming or in deep sleep.

So, IMHO, a jnAni can very well speak about his Self-Realization, and when he gives out personal references, we need to understand it to mean as the person we see in him rather than the Self he sees all around.

yajvan
11 October 2009, 10:10 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~


Namasté


I would like to slightly differ from the presentation of a Self-Realized you have given above:
Although turIya is popularly understood to be a fourth state beyond jAgrat--waking, svapna--dreaming and suShupti--deep sleep states of our existence, the term turIya also means 'that which comprises of four parts', so the state of turIya pervades all the other three states, like the sandhi--meeting of day and night, in and out breathing, clock ticks and so on.


With saidevo's permission, I'd like to contribute the following to the conversation. This turya (caturtha) is of great import; one also may wish to consider turyātīta (beyond the 4th).

turya तुर्य forming a 4th part ;
turyā (femine gender) तुर्या superior power;Who talks of this 4th? māṇḍūkya upaniṣad ( 12th śloka) ; the Śiva sūtra-s of Vasugupta (some call Maheśvara sūtra-s) considered śivopaniṣad saṅgraha; it is reviewed in verse 3.20. Is there another place perhaps identifying Kṛṣṇa as this 4th? Śrīmad Bhāgavatam offers this in 11.15.16.

FYI - svāmī Lakṣman-jū tells us this turya is savyāpāra¹ - occupied , or busily engaged . How so? All other states of conciousness find their home, their origin there, their 'power to function' comes from there, says svāmī Lakṣman-jū. He says it is also known as anāmayā¹ - free from blemishes, impurities - completely unagitated from any and all other states (~levels, conditions, energies~) of consciousness.

Yogins call this rūpātita (rūpa - to assume a form + ātita or gone by , past ) says svāmī -ji. This 4th has surpassed (ātita) the touch of one's self ( note small s, or ~individual~) or form, and is the establishment of one's Self ( note capital S or ~Universal~ status).

praṇām

words

savyāpāra सव्यापार - occupied , busily engaged ;having employment
anāmayā अनामय - free from disease , healthy

atanu
12 October 2009, 01:19 AM
namaste devotee.

I would like to slightly differ from the presentation of a Self-Realized you have given above:

Although turIya is popularly understood to be a fourth state beyond jAgrat--waking, svapna--dreaming and suShupti--deep sleep states of our existence, the term turIya also means 'that which comprises of four parts', so the state of turIya pervades all the other three states, like the sandhi--meeting of day and night, in and out breathing, clock ticks and so on.

The prANa that stirs jIvAtmas originates right from the Atman--Self because of its lIlA, so a jnAni--Self-Realized, who subsists in turIya is also aware of the other three states, so long as he resides in a body: like a normal human, he is awake talking and laughing and singing, he works through the dreams of other jIvAtmas and has his daily hours of deep sleep. The only difference between such a jnAni and an ordinary person is that the jnAni, because he subsists in turIya, is aware that he is waking, dreaming or in deep sleep.

So, IMHO, a jnAni can very well speak about his Self-Realization, and when he gives out personal references, we need to understand it to mean as the person we see in him rather than the Self he sees all around.

Namaste saidevo ji,

You are correct and devotee is also correct. Turiya by definition is a state out of the four states but also advaita in itself.

I will try to express that which is not expressible. We know that words come back therefrom. Actually word originates there. Shri Ramana Maharshi expressed this angst by replying to one questioner "Even if I explain, you will not comprehend".

Let me put the perspective from my understanding and limited experience.

The primeval "I" is Brahman. But that which is "I" looks out through the senses and sees the world. In this case, the ignorant sees objects as intelligent and full of prAna. But the Jnani knows that the true intelligence and prAna reside inside the "I".

In the second case, the "I" looks inside the "I" and finds no "I" and no world but only homogeneous sat-chit-ananda, consituting its nature.

In the third case, the "I" is the Master, Mahesvara, who can look bothways. He remains inside the "I" and yet looks out through the window of "I" to the Universe. I intuit that Shiva looking from Srisailam out to Venkatesvara, means this.

One may note that the second and the third options noted above apply only to Jnanis/avataras/gods etc. and not to us, since we do not know the inside of "I".

----------------------------
Now, the main problem of expressing "I know Brahman" can, I hope, be better understood.

First, the word and mind come back from It. Second, it is almost impossible to explain to someone who has seen the house of "I" from outside as to how the house of "I" from inside is. The problem is further compounded since, the house of "I" from inside is limitless whereas from the outside we get only limited view that we take as reference point of reality. It is impossible to explain the inside of the house of "infinite I" by an entity by assuming the role of a limted "I".

To overcome these problems, Krishna says "I am all these". Yet He again says no one knows me.

Regards

Om Namah Shivaya

yajvan
12 October 2009, 02:37 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

Namasté

atanu offers this nice insight,


Now, the main problem of expressing "I know Brahman" can, I hope, be better understood.
First, the word and mind come back from It. Second, it is almost impossible to explain to someone who has seen the house of "I" from outside as to how the house of "I" from inside is. The problem is further compounded since, the house of "I" from inside is limitless whereas from the outside we get only limited view that we take as reference point of reality. It is impossible to explain the inside of the house of "infinite I" by an entity by assuming the role of a limited "I".
To overcome these problems, Krishna says "I am all these". Yet He again says no one knows me.

It is said, if you can practice yoga then you are not in turyātīta. That means there is still 2. As atanu mentions you are coming back from it, it is still a ~destination~ and not the every day reality that is lived at all times.

Those unfamiliar with IT may call it turya, the 4th part. Yogins may call it rūpātita or rūpa, to assume a form + ātita or gone by , past, as mentioned in post 12 above.
Now the jñāni-s may call this turya pracaya . A beautiful word pracaya प्रचय meaning a heap or mass . Some would correct me and say the proper name would be mahāpracaya, and I would have to agree. This is the notion of totality , the sum total of all universal existence - this is the ultimate ideal of bhūman भूमन् fullness, abundance, the aggregate of all existing things.

Because of this huge totality, it is the reason why (IMHO) Kṛṣṇa says no one (really) knows Me. This universe say the wise is just a particle of His totality. For me this greatness is captured in the word satatodita¹. It means that which has no break or pause - a continuum.

What then does this have to do with turya ? It (turya) is described in the tantrāloka¹ as that which has no pause, no break. This is the beauty of turya. If you are a sādhaka you may experience samādhi , it (turya) is there ; It you are not a sādhaka , it is there, because there is no break or pause of this 4th.
But why then do I not experience it yajvan? What you put your attention on grows stronger in your life. It is not that turya is not present, it is all about one's attention, intent, etc. to experience it. It's as if saying, how come I do not experience the refreshing waves of the ocean? One only need to visit the ocean - it is there. Like that, turya is there, one need to only set up the conditions for this to occur, But that said...
Just as you experience the weather ( wind, rain, etc.) that is produced by the influence of the ocean this turya is the core and foundation of the worldly states wake, dream or sleep. One experiences its influence in other states of awareness. To experience IT (turya) on its own is a whole different conversation that we have talked much about here on HDF. More can be said as interest will direct the conversation.

praṇām

words and references

satatodita सततोदित we know by its components:
sata सत - a kind of sacrificial vessel
tata तत - extended , stretched , spread , diffused , expanded ; spreading over, covered over.
todita तोदित - goaded
dita दित - bound; cut or divided; cut , torn , divided
The tantrāloka śloka says the following: turyātīte bheda ekaḥ sataodita ityayam ||

Eastern Mind
12 October 2009, 04:24 PM
It appears to me that it is almost a taboo for a person to say they are a jivanmukta (self-realised or enlightened).

Perhaps to label oneself as enlightened would be to infer that individuals do exist (by the fact that we are different) and that an enlightened person should know better than to hint at such a thing.

It of course can be said that there is no such thing as an individual or enlightenment. It is avidya and Maya that veils. It does not mean that those who believe they are an individual will change on being told this, they may still feel a Guru is required.

Do we not risk stagnation as we wait for new fresh Gurus with the courage to tell the world they are enlightened to come along?

However most people refer to their Guru, so there must be people who have stepped up and offered their service.

I offer this slightly controversial post as I find the topic is one which is not so common and I would like to confirm if it is really a taboo to be a Jivanmukta in your opinion?

Snip, I just wanted to put this back on to remind people of the topic of this thread. I'm also curious as to whether or not you found it useful, and if it answered your original question in any way.

Aum Namasivaya

devotee
12 October 2009, 09:52 PM
Wonderful inputs ! Thank you Saidevo ji, Atanu & Yajvan ji !! :)

EM,

You are right we have taken a little liberty here but the discussion is not completely off the topic. The thread was about enlightenment & why the enlightened ones didn't proclaim so easily that they were enlightened. So, you need to go a little deeper to understand what the scenario is on enlightenment. That would bring discussion on Turiya, TuriyAtItA etc. ... the most difficult things to understand & explain from the standpoint of one (e.g. me) who is not enlightened.

OM

Onkara
13 October 2009, 11:55 AM
I'm also curious as to whether or not you found it useful, and if it answered your original question in any way.


. So, you need to go a little deeper to understand what the scenario is on enlightenment. That would bring discussion on Turiya, TuriyAtItA etc. ... the most difficult things to understand & explain from the standpoint of one (e.g. me) who is not enlightened.


Dear Eastern Mind & Devotee
Thank you for bringing the topic back to focus. I am satisfied with the answers provided and happy for more angles to be addressed as the sensation arises. The post, in my mind, is for the enjoyment of all and Turiya is of importance :)

I would like to add that I learnt from the answers you all provided. I now understand that it is not accurate (for me) to ask if there is a taboo in enlightenment, because enlightenment is knowing the non-dual Self; there is no duality. To ask if there is a taboo for the guru is to imply that there is still something different/wrong. I am creating a duality in raising these questions (which I had not seen before now).

It can be better explained that once the Self is known then life still continues around “you”; it is still the same consciousness, being and bliss from which the world arises. One who knows That knows Brahman. So the question has been answered. For an example, I raised the question of stagnation:


Do we not risk stagnation as we wait for new fresh Gurus with the courage to tell the world they are enlightened to come along?

It is no longer a matter of helping others to become enlightened, to say so would imply again, that there is still a search and searchers. Stagnation is just an impression. You are the Guru. It is all the play of consciousness and conceptualisation which leads to these questions.

I hope the above reads clearly.
Thanks again to all for input.

Bholenath
14 October 2009, 12:53 AM
Namaste,

I came to this forum searching for something unrelated to this topic (aliens on dharma) but since for the last month or so I am starting to build a personal knowledge hub about moksha with all I can found about it on the web I took advantage of HDF's search feature and made some queries about "jivanmukta" here.


I want to tell you that I experienced nirvikalpa samadhi eleven years ago. After it happened my life became something totally different to what it was before in both a positive and a negative sense.


I know that with claiming this and with the disposition I have towards discussing it openly I may make either a scape-goat (to attack) or a laughing-stock out of myself because of the reactions to my confidences and arguments after hurting your egos; thus ruining any possibility of becoming a part of this comunity. Specially in this thread, I see quite a resentment from some of your egos. Sorry.


When I experienced nirvikalpa samadhi I have been doing hatha-yoga for the previous three years, but I must admit that my ignorance on other yogas was almost total. If you read my self-introduction you'll know that I am a westerner.


I think my things to tell about the topic are going to be moot point here but I am ready to discuss because I don't believe that I will find persons with a biased mind pertaining the subject.


When I experienced this nirvikalpa samadhi, that was the detonator of a concatenation of evolutive changes, I was very young, only 21 and two months years old and first of all I wanted to tell you that I feel very proud of being a Hindu and seeing how you people who haven't still reachen the awakened state are preparing for it.


Egoistically, my personal story wasn't that knowledgable. To give you a succint idea for you to understand, when I experienced nirvikalpa samadhi I haven't yet put a single (right) toe inside a Hindu mandir. But I believe that it was all due to my hatha-yoga for the last three years...


I offer you to tell you what I was reading in those years (my only dharmic source of knowledge when I was stil a jivan)... In my last years of adolescence until I saw and felt the nirvikalpa I was reading a hatha-yoga encyclopedia of one latvian yogini Indra Devi. I think Vivekananda's excerpt on the "words of wisdom" section were of such a visionary awakening power, along the words of around a dozen other luminaries like Ramakrishna, Aurobindo, Sivananda, and Tagore and even Krishnamurti... that I started being devout without knowing.


But before that nothing, neither something else besides that (except an ISKCON BG and ST since the eighties that I thought I couldn't understand a single word and that's why I never tried reading it... His maya?)... nor in '95-'98 there was something as a sastra on the Internet.


I had to search for myself, and of course you may realize that I started a process of conflict with the world in general that pushed me to a vaisnava mandir in BsAs City (not an ISKCON one)... when I knew Sanatan and varnasrama dharmas there I became deeply fanatic and extremist and addicted to neo-vaisnavism because I started learning how the BG touched liberation, giving it such import, so I maybe realized that the mystical experience I have had was something related to it but I didn't know anything beside what is revealed in the BG, this was two years after experiencing nirvikalpa.


I only came, for the first time, to the technicalities of it when I read the yoga sutras where in the thorough commentary of BKS Iyengar I was convinced that what I felt and saw had a name; and from that moment onwards I felt capable of telling the world what I was. Because in his commentary I could relate what I have felt with liberation.


So... you see, liberation without jnana isn't going to make one no good... I expect you understand me what I am trying to convey, I guessed that I have lived it, after reading the BG and some other things, specially trika, but I didn't have the means for continuing an ever-evolving meditation on the subject, until I started when I read kaivalya pada in the YS of Patanjali (BKSY's commentary)... nor I had the scriptural backing to say with propriety "I'm awakened."


Sorry if this sounds too much for you but I feel myself as the living proof of Bhagavad-Gita's reavealed means of moksa attainment: God's loving grace. I'll tell you why. I haven't seen in my life a single image or deity of any of the dharmic Gods in BsAs, out of the ones in that encyclopedia and the ones I downloaded from the Internet in '96-'97... and since the words of wisdom of great masters have stolen my heart... I could start expressing devotion for God only in those years of late adolescence when I found yoga. It was somethig very personal because in BsAs may prove very difficult to find a fellow yogi, what to say of a christianity-shunner like me.


Who knows? Maybe in this forums there are others like me who for a question of decorum may not have the will to put themselves at the mercy of the great majority, the ones still jivans (please don't feel hurted) Well... I, pesonally don't care, I will try to discuss with you (as long as you don't start disparaging me) this as much as I can because I am very hungry of knowledge on this after 11 years and yet is very meager my collection of scriptural material to back my "arguments" up.


I wonder about something... some scriptures say that it can't be put into words. Maybe it can't be put in sanskrit words, or it is difficult to do it? while I want to believe the opposite, have you stopped to think about this?

I think I can put dharma-megha-samadhi in words and be talking about if for quite a few pages... anyone interested?


I am more than eager to be probed about this claim. I am more than disposed to answer all your questions pertaining it and of course that I mean I want you to make me your subject of study.


And no, I am not affraid of being tested and reproved.


I can tell you, for instance, the complete index of luminaries features in that yoga encyclopedia. Will you want to know which ones were the masters that God liked me reading so much as to grant me liberation? I can tell you this... but you have to consider my personal situation: before the event. I was almost a total mlecca without the knowledge of what a single quality was. (this didn't mean that I didn't have them) the masters in the books were:


Swami Vivekananda
Krishnamurti
Swami Satchitananda
Sai Baba
Krishnamacarya
Yogananda
Sivananda
Sri Aurobindo
Gandhi
Sri Ramana Maharshi
Bhudda
Sri Ramakrishna
Baba Hari Daas
Rabindranath Tagore
BKS Iyengar
Swami Chidananda
Swami Vishnu Devananda
Swami Brahmananda
Swami Saradananda
Swami Ramakrishnananda
Swami Premananda
Swami Muktananda


These teachers, plus other yoga concepts, completely refined my stance towards the world previously to the mystical experience. In those years it wasn't easy to find some of this authors in BsAs... for me that didn't have anything it was a great wealth of knowledge, but it was only a single page by each. So I think that with this humble 28 pages plus how they made me feel and how they changed me was just enough for Him...


I am very interested in this topic mostly due to the unfairness of the definitions and the loose bits of information that are on the Internet about the word "jivanmukta." I think the information on the topic is scanty and because on the Internet there is not the complete, exhaustive exposition of something so much important, (at least for those of us who now about the subject or simply long for liberation) I remind you that I am doing a database on the topic that once ordered will be published somewhere. I just wanted to note this in front of you.

Last but not least I want to give thanks to Saidevo por posting his extense collection of nectarean books. From them I will now proceed to start Friesen's one on this topic for later discussions.


I will love to be asked things about my mystical experience.


Om Namaha Shivaya and Ma nastoke.

 

Onkara
14 October 2009, 04:00 AM
Hello Bholenath
Thank you for your contribution to the thread. Please can you tell me briefly about bliss (Ananda) or lack of it, from your perspective? I would enjoy reading that.

The disposition you speak of is along the lines of the problem I hoped to address in raising this topic. I see little benefit in criticism and welcome people to step forward.

From a philosophical point of view I am not attracted to the term Nirvikalpa Samadhi, it moves the goal posts out further, forcing the aspirant to continue the search in want of some grand explosion. The Self is Now. I understand we need words to communicate, however I feel that it is often the use of these which will cause criticism.

Eastern Mind
14 October 2009, 08:47 AM
Namaste:

Bholenath:

Firstly, I'm not contributing out of some need to prove or disprove, but to add to my own knowledge. My own guru experienced samadhi at a young age without scripture or Guru. So have others. I and others really do have no idea of your experience of realisation. That is for you to know. I personally would have a much better sense if I were in your presence, but that is impossible. Presence is much more powerful than words in these matters.

nirvikalpa samadhi: Enstasy without form or seed. the realisation of the Self, Parasiva, a state of oneness beyond all change or diversity, beyond time, form and space. (taken from the lexicon of "Dancing with Siva")

jivanmukta : One who has attained nivikalpa samadhi ... This attainment is the culmination of lifetimes or intense striving, sadhana, and tapas, requiring total renunciation, sannyasa, in the current incarnation. While completing life in the physical body, the jivanmukta enjoys the ability to re-enter nirvikalpa samadhi again and again. At this time, siddhis can be developed which are carried to the inner worlds after mahasamadhi. Such an awakened jnani benefits the population by simply being who he is. When he speaks, he does so without forethought. his wisdom is beyond reason, yet does not conflict with reason ... (from "Dancing with Siva")

This is just one of the definitions that would be out there. In no way am I implying it is the only way to define or speak of these words. Other teachers may have quite different definitions.

So, I have a couple of questions.

What brought you to HDF? What do you feel your purpose is here?
Have any students gathered around you yet, and if so, how is that going? Is there a small group established?

Again, all movements start somehow, and somewhere. ISKCON started out with the personal instructions of Prabupada's Guru to (someone might correct me if I'm wrong, I have heard that Prabupada didn't coin ISKCON himself, but certainly it got coined) 'spread the word' and look at the results today. Similarly, Yogananda established the Self-realisation fellowship. Other jivanmuktas just wander, especially in India, around temples, under trees etc., have no formal following, yet attuned individuals sense their 'presence' and will come for blessing or merely to touch the feet of the jivanmukta.

So perhaps we are witness to the beginnings of something?

Aum Namasivaya

Bholenath
27 October 2009, 03:46 AM
Namaste,

before anything I want to apoligize for replying after ten days but the last week my link to Internet was down. Once in a year this may happen...

Thanks for asking about my samadhi with a "trigger" word (bliss). I told you I can describe it with words. It was very much about bliss, but felt in a way totally different to the bliss one might feel in a very happy moment of human life. It felt just as each single cell of my material, mental and astral bodies got suddenly conscious and as if each particular cell was able to feel like a body-mind-ego-intelligence complex of its own, capable of tasting the happiness of union by itself. You imagine this feeling flooding your material, mental and astral bodies all at once, strongly and suddenly and it handicaps you and lets you uncapable of functioning in the material plane as it is said it does. I personally lost my material sight when it happened. I saw something else (I like to think it was the brahmajyoti)...

The siddhis, also, have brought bliss. Telepathy, for instance. Allowing me to reach any friend I wanted by the only means of willing for it.

Then, as days started to pass and I started having an interior life, something that I lacked before the exprience, I ended up thinking that before the illumination I was more like a walking dead. I had a mind (a very handicaped and undeveloped and unintegrated one), a personality and an ego but these three were very rudimentary, that's why I saw myself before the experience as more dead than alive. I never thought that the mind and one's personal perception of the world could be taken to such an extreme as I was starting to see. Only in the days, months and years after the experience I've felt truly
alive. But wait, I don't imply that those who haven't experienced the support-less samadhi are dead. I know there are people with different grades of mental perception, but having an advanced level of mental development doesn't means that one has reachen the liberated platform. This is one of the things I want to deepen in discussions with you, because I have seen on the net, and even in books, definitions of jivanmukta that sound not quite right to me. For instance, when Swami Ramacharaka says that some are born with the capability of hearing and speaking with the mind he seems to imply that if you are capable of doing that you are a jivanmukta and that sounds downright wrong to me. I will quote the paragraphs of evidence of what I am saying if requested to do so; and so you'll see for yourself.

But I don't take this siddhi of telepathy and omniscience at will as the gist of the experience. No, I take them as more of an ancilliary side-effect of the nirvikalpa experience. From being spritually and internally shallow I changed to the beginning of having an interior life. This brought a lot of trouble to my life but also ineffable bliss.

Other side-effects like the capability to have OBEs and the capability to see the specters of dead friends (two apparitions and one manifestation at different points in time of two dead friends) were also a source of bliss because after such experiences one's personality changes for ever-after. Like, I was always attracted to everything uncanny like ghosts, and actually seeing them do things completely weird in front of me has given a very thrilling depth to my life that lets me wondering.

Two months after the experience I had my first lucid dream. In the following months I had the most quantity of OBEs and lucid dreams in my whole life up to today. Three years after the experience, when I was in India, I had my first astral projection. Happily my first lucid wandering in the astral plane was there, but anyway, I have found the astral projection (as opposed to OBEs/LD) a very disquieting experience requiring a good grade of courage from the part of the one projecting, because I have found it to be quite frightening. It may be because when it happened I was living almost inside a cemetery (in Pune) and I projected there.

These, and my first steps in dharma after two years of the experience, were some of the blissful things that happened to me after the mystical happening on itself. But, as I told you in my first message on this thread, all the time I wasn't aware of what I ahd experienced... until I read Iyengar's "Light on Yoga Sutras"; when I begun building up conscience of what I became. This may be offtopic, and it is one of the things that I also want to discuss with you...
After I learnt about the dharma-megha-samadhi, and started seeing myself as a jivanmukta I entered a new phase in the bliss and wonder of being it.

I started experiencing the phenomena known as spanda, in an ultimately obvious-to-me-way, seeing material nature do very weird things in front of me, and guess what? I started now searching, maybe instinctively, for knowledge on this phenomena of spanda. At first I had a single keyword, iddhi, to name the things I was now experiencing... (this was in India, actually two years before reading the spanda-karikas) I give you an example of what I mean by spandic phenomena: I am thinking of the Lord and suddenly I have a black fly flying around my left ear and a white moth flying around my right year... or bowing to the deity of Nrsimhadeva with dandavats, suddenly I feel a sticking pain in the palm of my hand after falling to floor in postrations to Him, to see a wasp leave the scene (Nrsimha spanda?) so here, with this minimal couple of examples, you can see why maybe is a taboo to speak about moska, because one's life reaches such multidimensional heights that is better to keep one's mouth shut for not being labeled a crackpot who "sees things."

To Easter Mind, I have to admit that your two questions are certainly mindstorming. But then, letting aside all sort of useless sophistication, I can tell you plainly that I haven't had a drive to seek for support from any community, in the last almost 4 years on the Internet I haven't found a single community to which I wanted to belong. I guess that I, somewhere, I will want to manifest and it will be ultimately here. I don't mean that I haven't visited and posted anything in any other Indian/Hindu place. To be sincere, Indian, but actually I haven't looked out to find you nor nothing so precious like this forum, where Hindus who speak english can belong. I remark it, it was purely by chance, when researching alien lifeforms from the dharmic viewpoint. I think that I wasn't ready yet to belong to a Hindu community because in my fall from India to the barbarian world I fancy to think that bringing Hindu minds to the degraded place where physically I am staying may do more evil than good. I need to confess that I am at the core of Argentina's meat industry: BsAs city shambles. As a purpose here in HDF, why, knowing a female shivanmukta with whom commiting some miscegenation <g>. So joking, but again, why?

Seriously, there are many wonderful things on which there is not much knowledge available, you should figure that I want to ask knowledgable people on spanda and doctrines like that and expose my personal experiences from the liberated point of view.

To reply to Easter Mind's second question. I lived as god-mad sadhaka when in India but never thought of starting a school... after knowing dharma at 22 years of age you can figure that it may prove very difficult for me to become a guru, maybe it wouldn't be sound at all, don't you think? Mainly I don't want to be one.

Besides I am addicted to extract joy from matter, not only from God and self, so what kind of a guru would I make? A false one? LOL :p

Well... after all I think I don't have any kind of conditionings to not talking about weird things. I will show you with the threads I'll start, I promise. If you want to ask me specific things on the subject of this thread, you're welcomed. (Thanks for giving me the space to manifest it, too)

my reverences,
Ma nastoke.

Bholenath.

yajvan
27 October 2009, 11:50 AM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

Namast&#233; Bholenath,

It is good to hear of your experiences . All signs of progress along the path. As the wise say sometines we confuse the view with the final location.
After reading your post, me thinks you have a good handle on this.

All the experiences ( IMHO and experience) is to groom pure consciousness, pure awareness. It is also to train one in 'balance'.
I know you know what this means as you most astutely use the word 'side-effects' in your post.


I am happy to hear and see one progressing... keep us posted on the grooming of the silence within ( turya तुर्य forming a 4th part ) ... all the other 'ingredients' is eye-candy that you have been blessed with.


praṇām

kd gupta
28 October 2009, 10:41 AM
For me , taboo of my enlightenment is a pair of my shoes which always remain in my mind till I am in a temple…:Cool: Thank god it was safe .

brahman
31 October 2009, 05:20 AM
same message



.

brahman
31 October 2009, 05:23 AM
.








Enlightenment v/s Enlighted men!






.

Onkara
31 October 2009, 01:29 PM
.








Enlightenment v/s Enlighted men!






.
Namasté Brahman
There is only enlightened men from a dualistic perspective, i.e. it is wrong to compare Enlightenment with Enlightened people. Is that your point in your post? Please explain. :)

nac
31 October 2009, 04:21 PM
Namast&#233; Brahman
There is only enlightened men from a dualistic perspective, i.e. it is wrong to compare Enlightenment with Enlightened people. Is that your point in your post? Please explain. :)
How about enlightened actions or enlightened activity in general? Do those only exist from a dualistic perspective too? Just asking.

Onkara
31 October 2009, 06:33 PM
How about enlightened actions or enlightened activity in general? Do those only exist from a dualistic perspective too? Just asking.
Hello Nac
That is a thought provoking question which will may well result in some interesting resoponses. :)

From the perspective a dualistic mind the actions of a known Guru (enlightened person who is known to be englightened) the actions may appear to be important if the dualistic onlooker believes they are important/enlightened actions. In other words, yes, enlightened actions exist if the onlooker believes them to be enlightened actions.

For example a Guru may perform a ritual, that ritual may be copied and performed by others who believe it will help them to understand the same state as the Guru.

The onlooker may see these actions existing in their own right and so having properties of enlightenment, ignorance or even stupidity for example.

From the perspective of the enlightened person "actions" change.

I would be interested to know what you think about enlightened actions?

nac
31 October 2009, 07:00 PM
How about actions that help lessen the suffering of all beings, oneself and others, or help us progress further along our spiritual paths? In short, actions that benefit everyone by some means... Are such actions indistinguishable from non-beneficial and random activities from the perspective of ultimate truth?

I ask because I'm trying to understand the difference between the views of Advaita and Buddhism, if any. The above is what Buddhism calls "enlightened activity". One who unceasingly engages in such activities is an enlightened Bodhisattva. Experiences of enlightenment and enlightened people don't count for much, but enlightened activity does.

Note: Of course, the form this activity takes may not necessarily seem enlightened to an onlooker or even to the people being helped. For example, when children are disciplined, they're not often well-disposed to their benefactor. It seems harsh from their point of view. Thus it's not always easy to discern truly beneficial activity from irresponsible short-sighted pampering in the long run. The latter actually has a name in modern Buddhism. It's called Idiot Compassion. Eg. releasing large numbers of animals and birds into environments that are unsuitable for them. (it happens in some parts of the world) Here's where Upaya-Kaushalya or expedient means through cleverness becomes important.

Onkara
01 November 2009, 04:50 AM
How about actions that help lessen the suffering of all beings, oneself and others, or help us progress further along our spiritual paths? In short, actions that benefit everyone by some means... Are such actions indistinguishable from non-beneficial and random activities from the perspective of ultimate truth?

Hello Nac
It is our mind which makes the distinctions between helpful actions and non-beneficial actions. Weather enlightened or not, everyone has the ability to act but no right over the result of their actions according to Krishna.


I ask because I'm trying to understand the difference between the views of Advaita and Buddhism, if any. The above is what Buddhism calls "enlightened activity". One who unceasingly engages in such activities is an enlightened Bodhisattva. Experiences of enlightenment and enlightened people don't count for much, but enlightened activity does.

Moksha (enlightenment) is the goal. Actions occur regardless, so there is no such thing as an enlightened action to my knowledge. There are different ways of acting and these are explained in Karma Yoga (the way of action). However only the enlightened can truly act completely unselfishly. It is desire i.e. selfish action, which attributes to problems and pains of the world. This type of desire arises when we believe we are apart from Brahman i.e. individual bodies struggling in a world in which we need to act in order to improve our position.


Note: Of course, the form this activity takes may not necessarily seem enlightened to an onlooker or even to the people being helped. For example, when children are disciplined, they're not often well-disposed to their benefactor. It seems harsh from their point of view. Thus it's not always easy to discern truly beneficial activity from irresponsible short-sighted pampering in the long run. The latter actually has a name in modern Buddhism. It's called Idiot Compassion. Eg. releasing large numbers of animals and birds into environments that are unsuitable for them. (it happens in some parts of the world) Here's where Upaya-Kaushalya or expedient means through cleverness becomes important.


It would be well worth reading about Karma Yoga, which is too vast for me to type about, to help understand the Advaita perspective. In my opinion there is no such thing as enlightened action in Advaita. Advaita is similar to Karma Yoga with regard to actions.

Briefly our actions can also be considered to be influenced by the three gunas. The gunas are a quality or force which operates in the world. Sattva - goodness, Rajas - passion and Tamas - negativeness. It is enlightenment which permits the person to reduce the influence of the gunas. Again I recommend searching this forum (or internet) for explanation of gunas because these are explained well by others here and my definition is the minimal to help my point to be made.

Brahman is beyond the gunas, however Gurus are often said to be more or completely Sattva - goodness. So an enlightened person will act out of goodness and never from selfish or negative behaviour. Similar to your example of a child disciplined, the Gurus behaviour may appear harsh or uncompromising but it is done in total interest for the other person.

As for saving the world, one can act but not control the results of their actions. Giving money to charity is a good action, but how that money gets spent is out of one's control and it may not be used productively.

Both bad and good things in the world are just a matter of perspective. At the absolute level all is Brahman and so all is as it is capable of being. IMHO the enlightened person will not refuse to help however unlike the Buddha they may not linger on earth to specifically help someone because the world is already how Brahman intended it and there is no desire remaining for them to change the world.

I cannot comment in depth on the Buddhist ideas, but I hope this brief overview helps to explain action in respect to Vedanta. I feel inclined to add that this is from my perspective and I am visiting this forum in order to fine tune my knowledge of concepts of classical Advaita from other concepts which I find useful. So I am happy if others add or disagree.

Onkara
01 November 2009, 04:57 AM
Namasté Bholenath
Thank you for finding the time to reply. I was pleased and interested to read your response. I felt that Yajvan ji (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showpost.php?p=34282&postcount=22)captures the sentiments well and would be interested to read more about grooming the silence within.

Your individual experiences of Spanda are new to me, I have not heard or read of something similar.

Thank you.

nac
01 November 2009, 09:55 AM
Thanks for the response. I understand neither Advaita nor Buddhism deeply, but the post about different possible manifestations of enlightenment caught my attention. _/\_


It is our mind which makes the distinctions between helpful actions and non-beneficial actions.
Obviously, but that doesn't mean beneficial actions are necessarily indistinguishable from non-beneficial actions. It means that for an action to be beneficial, it must be suited to the present state or nature of it's recipient(s) in both relative and absolute terms.

PS. I only know about Karma Yoga from the Bhagavad Gita chapter.

devotee
01 November 2009, 09:37 PM
Namaste,


It is our mind which makes the distinctions between helpful actions and non-beneficial actions.

Correct, but I would like to point out the hidden danger due to mixing of dictum applicable in one state with the other.

Does the above mean that we should indulge in any action & it would not result in any bad/good effect as long as I remember that quote mentioned above & I keep convincing myself that it is all because of our conditioned thinking ? Many people think so , especially those who are comparatively new to Advaita philosophy.

As long as my attachment is not fully dropped from this body-mind entity, "I" takes the ownership of whatever I do & therefore I accrue merits or sins. For going beyond the effects of Good & Bad Karmas, I have to follow the path of Karma Yoga as narrated in Bhagwad Gita by Lord Krishna or follow the path of Jnan Yoga & attain Self-Realisation.

OM

Onkara
02 November 2009, 04:26 AM
Correct, but I would like to point out the hidden danger due to mixing of dictum applicable in one state with the other.

Does the above mean that we should indulge in any action & it would not result in any bad/good effect as long as I remember that quote mentioned above & I keep convincing myself that it is all because of our conditioned thinking ? Many people think so , especially those who are comparatively new to Advaita philosophy.

As long as my attachment is not fully dropped from this body-mind entity, "I" takes the ownership of whatever I do & therefore I accrue merits or sins. For going beyond the effects of Good & Bad Karmas, I have to follow the path of Karma Yoga as narrated in Bhagwad Gita by Lord Krishna or follow the path of Jnan Yoga & attain Self-Realisation.


Namast&#233; Devotee
Thank you for picking up on this. This is something I have been considering as I have come across various opinions on Ego (ahamkara) including:

1) Ego is part of Brahman and remains after enlightenment.

One reason for this it that it is due the operation of manas (rationalistation, doubting, thinking) working with chitta (memory, emotions). When the two interact then ego becomes active e.g. I am doing this. It is only when manas relaxes and buddhi (intellect) takes over that ego is also subdued for the time being.

2) Ego remains for some time until it "wears off". Perhaps due to prarabdh Karma which remains from pre-enlightenment desires (karma) and still needs to be spent or experienced. Or simply until ego is understood fully.

3) Ego exists until full dis-attachment. Which you kindly explain. This approach makes sense to me also in reflection to the commentary of Sri Sankaracharya where we are reminded to not become attached to worldly sense objects.

I would welcome comments.

devotee
02 November 2009, 09:42 PM
Namaste Snip,

Let me try to answer your questions :


This is something I have been considering as I have come across various opinions on Ego (ahamkara) including:
1) Ego is part of Brahman and remains after enlightenment.

Ego or that matter all thoughts or feelings & emotions come from Brahman alone. However, the difference is that then when "ego" (AhamkAr) is there, we don't call it Brahman. We must understand this subtle difference. There is basically no difference between a piece of Charcoal & a piece of Diamond ... both are essentially the same yet we don't call the Charcoal a Diamond. The AhamkAr arises in waking & dreaming states of the SELF & that is what this world is. When this AhamkAr falls then this world doesn't appear as world, then this "I" doesn't identify with the individual body-mind entity.

Does it remain after enlightenment ? What is enlightenment, first of all ? The eradication of all sense of duality is enlightenment, so how can ego survive ? There is no place for a separate "ego" in the fourth state. The person after attaining Self-realisation does live in this world, he does do the worldly tasks as others do .... but the doer is not someone who used to identify with the body-mind entity. The saying is that, "There is "doing" without a doer".


One reason for this it that it is due the operation of manas (rationalistation, doubting, thinking) working with chitta (memory, emotions). When the two interact then ego becomes active e.g. I am doing this. It is only when manas relaxes and buddhi (intellect) takes over that ego is also subdued for the time being.

Buddhi is within this world. The Self in fourth state is beyond even Buddhi. It cannot be described by any term or combination of words.


Ego remains for some time until it "wears off". Perhaps due to prarabdh Karma which remains from pre-enlightenment desires (karma) and still needs to be spent or experienced. Or simply until ego is understood fully.

Ramana Maharishi doesn't agree with this, though this theory is also put forward by some people. Ramana Maharishi says that this situation is like this : "A man has four wives. Saying that all the Karma becomes seedless except the prarabdha karma is like saying that after the death of that man, three becomes widow but one remains Sumangali (whose husband is alive) !".


Ego exists until full dis-attachment. Which you kindly explain. This approach makes sense to me also in reflection to the commentary of Sri Sankaracharya where we are reminded to not become attached to worldly sense objects.

Dis-attachment from sense objects is one of the steps towards Self-realisation ... it doesn't guarantee annihilation of ego. You may have conquered carnal desires but attachment to this thought that, "I have conquered my senses" may remain !

Why should we work towards dis-attachment from worldly sense objects ? Because this attachment strengthens our identification with this body-mind entity. So, if we are working towards Self-realisation, this first step is a must. We cannot fill our pot with water from a pond unless we close the holes in the bottom of that pot ! Before these senses are curbed, it is not possible to focus the mind during meditation. It is not possible to get rid of restlessness produced by thousand of thoughts which are product of our attachment with this world. And these random thoughts are the barrier which keep us within our dreaming states oblivious of our True Nature.

The above may be taken only as my humble opinion/understanding formed from scriptures and sayings of enlightened beings. The exact nature can be explained by only an enlightened being which I am not.


OM

brahman
03 November 2009, 01:48 AM
The Taboo of Enlightenment
It appears to me that it is almost a taboo for a person to say they are a jivanmukta (self-realised or enlightened).

Perhaps to label oneself as enlightened would be to infer that individuals do exist (by the fact that we are different) and that an enlightened person should know better than to hint at such a thing.

It of course can be said that there is no such thing as an individual or enlightenment. It is avidya and Maya that veils. It does not mean that those who believe they are an individual will change on being told this, they may still feel a Guru is required.

Do we not risk stagnation as we wait for new fresh Gurus with the courage to tell the world they are enlightened to come along?

However most people refer to their Guru, so there must be people who have stepped up and offered their service.

I offer this slightly controversial post as I find the topic is one which is not so common and I would like to confirm if it is really a taboo to be a Jivanmukta in your opinion?



Second post
Namasté Brahman
There is only enlightened men from a dualistic perspective, i.e. it is wrong to compare Enlightenment with Enlightened people. Is that your point in your post? Please explain. :)




Jivanmukta is transcendental state

Do’s n don’ts for transcendent?

No, I don’t believe it Snip.

In my opinion


Do’s of the transcendent are ‘Sastras’ for us.

Don’ts of the transcendent are 'Nirvana' them.


Support from the sastras here.

gata-sańgasya muktasya
jńānāvasthita-cetasaḥ
yajńāyācarataḥ karma
samagraḿ pravilīyate (B G 4: 23)



TRANSLATION(please refer to your version as well)

The work of a man who is unattached to the modes of material nature and who is fully situated in transcendental knowledge merges entirely into transcendence.









.

Bholenath
17 November 2009, 12:35 AM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

Namast&#233; Bholenath,

It is good to hear of your experiences . All signs of progress along the path. As the wise say sometines we confuse the view with the final location.
After reading your post, me thinks you have a good handle on this.

All the experiences ( IMHO and experience) is to groom pure consciousness, pure awareness. It is also to train one in 'balance'.
I know you know what this means as you most astutely use the word 'side-effects' in your post.


I am happy to hear and see one progressing... keep us posted on the grooming of the silence within ( turya तुर्य forming a 4th part ) ... all the other 'ingredients' is eye-candy that you have been blessed with.


praṇām

Namaste,

Sorry for the delay in my replies, I am having a tough time at school.

I was thinking about your question. I had the luck to be able to develop my spiritual self but this only happened, coincidentially, when I had just arrived to India, when I got the knowledge of what was the thing I experienced; 29 months after the experience.


Before the beginning of the grooming of the jivanmukta mentality I was in places and situations in the west that weren't conducive to any spiritual practice.


I was always, from 11 years old, a computer geek, but when I travelled to India as a Dharma student I started to be away from the pc because I didn't have the means to buy one and I felt that what was truly essential was the acquisition of knowledge to defend myself in a world that I saw as a very hostile world. Before I was very disorganized and unproductive with the pc, and I think that it had to do with the lack of any real culture and philosophy of life. It was a feeling like "Of what use learning anything or even doing anything with the PC if I don't know my real self?", I felt as if my life didn't have any meaning nor direction without self-knowledge and a philosphy of life.


Because of it, I weighed the two prospects, continuing a life of materialism without any culture, and not enjoying it at all, or keeping away from it for developing spiritually. The choice of learning things about Dharma has let me with a lot of time for doing it because of not being computing.


I continued with the hatha-yoga practice but trying to learn new techniques and I also did certain amount (generally no less than two hours daily) of knowledge cultivation. I studied the BG two times and the Ramayana and other books like Upanisads and sutras. I studied the Siva Purana, the Siva Sutras and the Spanda-Karikas. I also studied the life of Sakyamuni Buddha, and a small quantity of Vaisnava books. These were the things I studied in the first years.


I experimented with tapas, but when I readed about mantra-chanting on scriptures (eg: Sivapurana) I realized I was doing something in which I haven't done a deep research. First I chanted mantras only to attain samadhi (any type and quantity was good) but then I learnt that I should to do it for a purpose more concise than simple yoga. Otherwise I wouldn't be taking advantage of the mantra's power and benefits. And other thing that has let me thinking about how a complex practice tapas is, is that one is working towards a definite goal already with each mantra one chants. I think you know the way mantra chanting is awarded with very specific fruits, for instance, if you chant a determined thousand of times a mantra you get a body like Shiva's in your next life, that sort of technicalities I didn't know at first... I made some errors like chanting mantras in the street. I did it because I lacked motivation when indoors.


It is very sad how difficult it is to learn from books... still, all the dharmic knowledge I accumulated since I changed, it is from books. It is very small the quantity of knowledge learnt the right way (with sound) of the knowledge that I have. I make this note when talking about tapas because mantra and study of scriptures are both considered swadhyaya. I interpret that one method is for fruit, yoga and samadhi while the other is for yoga and jnana and application of that jnana. I liked to think that I could achieve samadhi reading. I strived to feel any type of samadhi reading, but only felt what I would calle the fag end of savikalpa.


I must confess that my personal story may sound very dissapointing for persons striving for liberation because I didn't matted in locks my hair and went to wander to the roads of India naked, with my locks as loincloth and a pot for receiving charity as only property, after the experience. I don't want to call it the stereotype of an illumined sage but that image I've just wrote is what I feel is commonly expected from one who witnessed the mind of God. To become a sannyasi. I am sorry for the bluntness of the image but I personally feel that spiritually and mentally I am treated in a way that is too-much inviting to that alternative, but I liked always to see the other extreme of the fact. If one, being a jivan, was capable of functioning in the world, how much more apt the liberated person finds oneself for the challenge.


I think I could groom the silence of God's mind more if I wanted, it just hasn't been so. Being westerner my psyche is deeply rooted in materialism. I am simply not satisfied with the simplicity and the way of life of a person who fancies to think that she or he lives in the Satyayug... this personality is the product of what meant to me knowing Dharma with orthodox Hinduism (gaudiya vaisnavism) and then involving all its teachings (and in my case also brainwashings and mental abuse) of the krishnas with tantra's welcoming oneself back to a (renewed) profound freedom to feel attachment to whatever one may want to be attached to, spiritual or not, but this time from a Godly perspective.


To tell you the truth, I haven't striven hard for feeling God's mind again. It may be that after knowing nirvikalpa I found savikalpa tasteless. That is other of things I note of myself, that once I attained nirvikalpa, reaching savikalpa becomes a knack. But one must try harder for nirvikalpa and I think two things made me think that it was pointless to pursue it: one, that I didn't want to be trying to reach nirvikalpa in a city (not even Pune, one of the places where I tried) and two, obviating the sad fact of having to experience it in a city... trying to achieve it for what purpose? Just to feel with more authority to claim it? No thanks, I saw it as a loss of time when I could be learning something in a swadhyaya of reading or chanting and also relishing, although as I said the not much essential for me, supported samadhi.


Returning to the subject of how to develop in society being a jivanmukta. I said that a jivanmukta is endowed with an advantage to everything in life. But when I started learning what I have become, I stoped letting the world condition myelf and I stopped letting others do their thinking for myself. To recognize my own wishes and be able to follow my own desire I had to learn more when I thought I already knew how to not be conditioned or programed by the world. Before I didn't have the power of viveka well developed pertaining thoughts, so I was easily manipulated. But that is over for half a decade now.


Somewhere I have read that as much one advances in knowledge of samadhi and its anciliary effects, more difficult is for oneself to progress and behave correctly in the material society. I admit of experiencing this, but take on account my situation. Of knowing (what I think as) heaven, Aryavarta, falling back to the barbarian world where I never felt at home. When I was living in India it consisted in my worst fear. It was scary because in India I was feeling for the first time in my life and I felt at home and I actually felt that I was accepted and given the opportunity to live with an full-blown, integrated mind. This is because in India I say that I didn't yet learn the most essential ways of practicing viveka. In india I was, sometimes, very deeply conditioned and manipulated also, but since I was living with an integrated mind I didn't realize it; day-to-day life was very, very sweet.


Yet, when I returned to mleccadesh I started to live isolated mentally because the mind that I had in India died; having to live at the heart of BsAs flesh industry was very unsuitable for it. I know how I felt in India and the way I was feeling after the return was a very different one. Needless to say that in not a single moment I felt my mind integrated to BsAs society, and how pretentious is the barbarian mind that it even lacks the discretion of trying to condition me subtly. In its demands and aims at condition and manipulate me it's blunt and obvious, so for the last five years I am living as a recluse and not being productive in mlecca society at all, just pursuing my own dreams. I am 32 years old and I am three exams shy of my highschool degree.


What before were ideals, like Aryavarta, Dharma and mukti now became a cause. Lately I am disliking the idea of, after 11 years of the experience, having few sources of knowledge about the experience to have a stock of knowledge not only to meditate by myself but to talk with others and discuss. This of having been liberated meant a new stance in the world, a (new) pivotal facet of my personality from which to see the world. Maybe the examples I am going to give are very obvious, but here they go.


Before I couldn't discern when I was being conditioned but now, with the viveka developed I recognize at once when I am being manipulated, programmed or conditioned and I have the courage to reject or argument against all of it.


Any time that I feel uncapable of doing anything, lacking anything, afraid or preoccupied by anything, remembering that I gave up these feeling when I started to know what I became, I reject the thoughts at once because I know that is a contrivance of whoever is trying to manipulate myself mentally.


I had to forget how to become scared. I started to feel the negative sensations as something quite unreal. And as I became convinced of this, on returning, each time I felt fear or depression or sadness I started to scrutinize these feelings and most of the times I felt that.


In India I started being reclusive, I think that it is inherent to my jivanmukta state to be obsessed with God and to hate dealing with people. Seeing beyond misery and degeneration in India I felt that I haven't seen any beautifuller place before. Constant novelty was very fun and it felt totally superior to any novelty before for everything being intrinsically godly. But not even the deeply emotive eeriness of India could stop me from being reclusive.


It was very gratifying to find later that this of starting to love reclusion instead of the world is quite a very auspicious sign, it means one has stopped being a tamasic pashu (herd oriented).


Then, as I returned I started to experience a return to old ways of degradation and an almost complete disconnection from Dharma and a sense of anything dharmic done being useless for the principle of one being unable to reap benefits from any tapas or kriya in a place that is barely 200 meters from an illegal swine slaughterhouse, or fifty meters of other aberrations of the sub-human race, like cow meat packing plants, that around here are the norm. Here there is I think zero possibilities of developing a personal relation with samadhi. Here the situation is very serious: a crowd of sub-human laborers the great majority of them living the life of pigs.


Nevertheless I haven't stopped having a minimum of essential dharmic practices in my daily schedule. That the environment is doomed doesn't mean that I am. That's the ungodlys' problem. Progress is very slow due to the resentment of mlecca society that tries to hinder one constantly, but I must admit that for a jivanmukta, I have realized it, the principle of fruitless tapas is not relevant.


I see good fruits to my yogic practices. But respecting the grooming of knowledge on God's mind I can't give you any more hints than the ones I already expressed in this post, I haven't found the occasion, and more importantly the place, to try it without feeling questionable. Please understand that for me it is as if I was Arjuna in Kuruksetra war and instead of surrendering to what God wants (me to fight) I would try to sit on the chariot in lotus position and start concentrating to realize samadhi.

My reverences,

Ma nastoke.
 
 

NayaSurya
01 May 2010, 11:13 AM
Somewhere I have read that as much one advances in knowledge of samadhi and its anciliary effects, more difficult is for oneself to progress and behave correctly in the material society. I admit of experiencing this, but take on account my situation. Of knowing (what I think as) heaven, Aryavarta, falling back to the barbarian world where I never felt at home. When I was living in India it consisted in my worst fear. It was scary because in India I was feeling for the first time in my life and I felt at home and I actually felt that I was accepted and given the opportunity to live with an full-blown, integrated mind. This is because in India I say that I didn't yet learn the most essential ways of practicing viveka. In india I was, sometimes, very deeply conditioned and manipulated also, but since I was living with an integrated mind I didn't realize it; day-to-day life was very, very sweet.

In India I started being reclusive, I think that it is inherent to my jivanmukta state to be obsessed with God and to hate dealing with people. Seeing beyond misery and degeneration in India I felt that I haven't seen any beautifuller place before. Constant novelty was very fun and it felt totally superior to any novelty before for everything being intrinsically godly. But not even the deeply emotive eeriness of India could stop me from being reclusive.
 



Bholenath, I truly hope you are still around, you have such a beautiful story.

As a recluse I do understand what you are saying, from my heart this soul does feel your story as my own.

But I try desperately to embrace this society around me. Despite my inclination to hide away and just be with God...myself...the children...my husband...all kindred kind and do not harm me.

It is then I am reminded that everytime one of those beings out there impacts with me, I impact with them. The barbarian is God...and my impact helps him along his way. Seek them and infect them with knowledge.

Unfit is the perfect word to describe how I feel about my interaction with others. We have a saying in Kentucky that one becomes "Touched". Once touched you can never undo it. I am infact touched this way.

Only then did I realize the other portion of this phrase is never added until you become so. Touched by God.

This is such a blessing to this world.

I am not even fit to post here in this wonderful forum, but I do so...painfully exposing my own ignorance and innocence and awaiting the impact of ones who will help steady my direction.


I am not even fit to move in the corrupt gross physical world outside my beautiful hill.

But I seek it anyway...because I know that the infection comes from both sides. They can try to change you, but can they?

...and you can change them...oh yes...it happens.

It is fortunate in my philosophy that dealing with people is doing the dirty work...it is dealing with the most impure aspects of the souls development. God does love this work. I feel it's my service here.

It's painful, silly, smelly, ugly, beautiful, disgusting...and awesome.

Awesome.


Once as I child I was impacted by two beings. One was Buddhist, one was devotee of Krsna.

I was told by a well meaning Mother that they were Satan worshippers.

But these friends were holy, kind and I knew in my heart that their life was not evil.

My box became cracked...the box I was born in was very fragile....it was cracked from birth.

Every time a more enlightened being impacted with my box...it cracked a bit more.

Until one day I became touched myself.

Now, out from the box into the light of God...I must return this duty and impact with others.

Often, I am hurt from the encounter...but always I know that the task must be done.

I will do this, until the day I impact and there is nothing left of me, then I will be truly enlightened.

Prya Tamah Sivaya commands this.

Om Namah Sivaya<3

*Hugs* to the kindred kind<3