Author Topic: Why is thoughtlessness samadhi ?  (Read 22225 times)

amiatall

  • Guest
Re: Why is thoughtlessness samadhi ?
« Reply #60 on: July 09, 2010, 07:08:40 PM »
Blue sky is there, appears.
Now, does the knowledge in me, that there is no blue sky gets affected by seeing blue sky? This knowledge in no way can be shaken any time.





silentgreen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 757
    • View Profile
Re: Why is thoughtlessness samadhi ?
« Reply #61 on: July 10, 2010, 09:53:10 AM »
There are many cases in the king-beggar analogy, which brings out many finer points.

Case 1: The king is seen as a beggar:
- The king goes to a foreign country and people mistake him as a beggar. However the king knows that he is a king and is not bothered how the people see him.

- In terms of rope and snake, little boys decorate a rope as a snake (maybe to scare others), but a person who knows it as a rope is not bothered about it.

- The king here is not the absolute controller of the situations. He has no control over how the people will perceive him in the foreign country. The person who sees the decorated rope has no control over how the little boys will decorate the rope. Even though, the king knows himself as a king, there exist others who thinks themselves as beggars.

- In this case the king has no thoughts since he does not participate in the situations. The person does not participate in the game of little boys and hence has no thoughts.


Case 2: The king plays the role of a beggar for duty:
- The king plays the role of a beggar to find out the situation in his kingdom.

- The person participates in the rope-snake game with the little boys to teach the little boys.

- The king again is not the absolute controller. He does not control external situations and works within the scheme of duty.

- In this case, the king and the person has thoughts of duty.


Case 3: The king plays the role of beggar for advantage:
- The king has to present himself as a beggar to other people to get some advantage from them.

- The person has to show the little boys his fear to get some advantage from them.

- The king again is not the absolute controller.

- In this case there are either thoughts of some bondage, or it is a trivial common sense situation.


Case 4: The king plays the role of a beggar out of joy of his kingly nature:
- The king is overjoyed with his kingly nature and plays the role of a beggar to enjoy his kingly nature. Here we are entering the territory of leela.

- The person out of joy of knowing the rope participates in the game with the little boys.

- The king again is not the absolute controller.

- In this case there are self-created thoughts. These thoughts does not bind the king but are an expression of the knowledge and freedom. The king has a sense of non-duality knowing that there is a kingly nature (which he is), and he also has a sense of duality seeing the relative world.


Case 5: The king plays the role of a beggar out of joy of seeing kingly nature everywhere:
- The king is overjoyed seeing the kingly nature in everything. He plays different roles to enjoy the kingly nature and expresses the joy of the kingly nature in the relative world.

As far as I have understood Sri Ramakrishna's sayings, Sri Ramakrishna called this case as vijnana. The vijnani performs leela to milk the joy of Brahman seeing the same divine essence everywhere. He assumes different roles and plays with different roles.

- The vijnani has thoughts, thoughts of leela, which are self-created. Standing on non-duality he puts on the garb of duality to enjoy Brahman and share its joy in the world of duality.

- However, in this case also the king may not have absolute control over everything.
He may not have any control over how the relative world originate, how beggars even though kings still thinks themselves as beggars.

- The entity which has absolute control over everything, which is in everything, which is everything, Sri Ramakrishna calls as Shakti or Divine Mother (whose passive state is Brahman).


Case 6: The king is the absolute controller (Shakti or Divine Mother) and plays all roles:
- The difference between absolute controller and non-absolute controller can be described with the wave-ocean analogy:
-- A non-absolute controller king even as wave knows himself as the ocean (the king). He however does not control other waves in the ocean nor has he the power to create waves in the ocean. An absolute controller even as a wave can control all the other waves and is the creator of all the waves.
--- An absolute controller can create maya which is a perfect art in the following sense:
When we try to play chess alone, there arises the difficulty that one side knows the thoughts of the other side. So here unity is preventing the joy of the game. Maya is such a perfect art that unity does not prevent joy in the game. Here the art of partitioning is perfect.
-- A non-absolute controller wave does not graduate and become an absolute controller wave. His only route is to merge in the ocean and stay as the ocean awareness. An absolute-controller wave is of a different nature.

- The Divine Mother can remain as the ocean or emerge as an absolute-controller wave incarnation.

- The Divine Mother creates stages for leela, the kings, subjects and everything from Her own nature and Herself plays through the creation. She creates joys, sorrows and many other moods.

- Obviously Divine Mother is a jnani. Whether a jnani is Divine Mother playing a role with full knowledge of Her nature, it is difficult to say.

- Obviously Divine Mother has thoughts, created by her. She not only creates thoughts for one role, but for all roles wherever applicable. However, She is also thoughtless, as Brahman. She is depicted as dancing on the bosom of Shiva. Shiva is also shown as Ardha-Narishwara.

- A beggar does not know himeself as king because of Her maya.
A beggar knows himself as a king because of her grace.
Expressing in a more non-dualistic way, a beggar knows himself as king when the Divine Mother graduates her beggar's role to king's role.


In summary:
- A king will not have thoughts if he is not participating in any play (e.g. case 1). The king will have thoughts if he is participating in a role play.

- A king who is not an absolute-controller wave stays in ocean awareness. He is not the creator of waves. The king who is an absolute-controller creates and controls all the waves.
(The absolute-controller wave concept is not accepted in all philosophies. Here it is stated to bring out different cases of the king-beggar analogy)

These inferences are based on king-beggar example and sayings of Sri Ramakrishna.
Homage to the Universal Being...Om Shanti ... Om Shanti ... Om Shanti ...

Subramanian.R

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 47084
    • View Profile
Re: Why is thoughtlessness samadhi ?
« Reply #62 on: July 10, 2010, 12:44:41 PM »

Dear silentgreen,

Thank you for your thoughtfully written post with a lot of analysis.

Muruganar says in Guru Vachaka Kovai, Verse 1139:

If it is asked, "We actually see the Jnani performing actions. How
can actions be performed in the absence of the sense of doership,"
you should be convinced that because his inner attachment [ego]
is dead, he has God himself residing in his Heart, and performing
those actions.

In Day by Day entry dt. 5th May 1946, Bhagavan says:

And if it is held that a man cannot be considered a Jnani, as long as he performs actions in the world [and action is impossible without
the mind], then not only the great sages who carried on various
kinds of work after attaining Jnana must not be considered Jnanis,
but the gods also, and Iswara himself, since he continues looking
after the world.  The fact is that any amount of action can be performed, and performed quite well, by the Jnani without identifying himself with it in any way or ever imagining that he is the doer.  Some power acts through his body and used his body to get the work
done.



Arunachala Siva.   

Subramanian.R

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 47084
    • View Profile
Re: Why is thoughtlessness samadhi ?
« Reply #63 on: July 10, 2010, 12:50:19 PM »


Bhagavan Ramana says again in Talks No. 82:

Others notice that the Jnani [Being] active, e.g., eating, talking,
moving etc.,  He is not himself aware of these activities, whereas
others are aware of his activities.  They pertain to his body and not to his real Self, Swarupam.  For himself, he is like a sleeping passenger in a cart - or like a child interrupted from sound sleep and fed, being unaware of it.  The child says the next day that he did not take milk at all, and that he went to sleep without it.  Even when reminded he cannot be convinced.

Muruganar also says this in his GVK Verse 1140.


Arunachala Siva.   

Subramanian.R

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 47084
    • View Profile
Re: Why is thoughtlessness samadhi ?
« Reply #64 on: July 10, 2010, 01:13:21 PM »

Dear silentgreen and others,

There is one more of Bhagavan Ramana's sayings in Talks No.87.
In this, He described the state of Jesus Christ.



Quesioner: Why did Jesus call out 'My God!  My God!' while being crucified?

Bhagavan:  It might have been an intercession on behalf of the
two thieves who were crucified with him.  Again, a Jnani has
attained liberation even while alive, here and now.  It is immaterial
as to how, where and when he leaves his body.  Some Jnanis
may appear to suffer, others may be in samadhi, still others may
disappear from sight before death [Ramalinga Swamigal].  But
that makes no difference to their Jnana.  Such suffering is apparent only to the onlooker and not to the Jnani, for he has already
transcended the mistaken identity of the Self with the body.

Guru Vachaka Kovai, Verse 1137 says:

Those great ones enjoy as their own real nature only the transcendent reality. Seeing them as the form of the body that suffers is merely the nature of the perspective of those inert
onlookers. 



Arunachala Siva.

           

eranilkumarsinha

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3768
    • View Profile
Re: Why is thoughtlessness samadhi ?
« Reply #65 on: July 27, 2010, 05:20:41 PM »
  Thoughtless state is our natural state
   and our natural state is the state of
   samadhi.

                Anil

eranilkumarsinha

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3768
    • View Profile
Re: Why is thoughtlessness samadhi ?
« Reply #66 on: July 27, 2010, 09:10:09 PM »
 Dear Shri Srkudai,
              Pranam,

        Bhagwan Shri Ramana has said, 'Thoughtless state is our natural state'. Obviously we are not thoughtless
        yet. Impurity of thoughts has impaired our natural state.Hence Sir, unless one removes this impurity
        by efforts or sadhana, how can he regain his natural state? Sir I would request you to
        kindly elaborate.                         

ramana_maharshi

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3557
    • View Profile
Re: Why is thoughtlessness samadhi ?
« Reply #67 on: July 27, 2010, 11:48:14 PM »
As Bhagavan Ramana says,

Ananya saranagathi means to be without any attachment of thoughts, no doubt, but does it mean to discard thoughts even of food and water, etc., which are essential for the sustenance of the physical body? He asks, ‘should I eat only if I get anything by God’s direction, and without my asking for it? Or should I make a little effort?’ All right! Let us take it that what we have to eat comes of its own accord. But even then, who is to eat? Suppose somebody puts it in our mouth, should we not swallow it, at least? Is that not an effort?

In the book Sadhana Panchaka written by Sankara, it is stated, kshudvyadhischa chikitsyatam pratidinam bhikshoushadham bhudyatam’. It means, for treatment of the disease called hunger, eat food received as alms. But then, one must at least go out for bhiksha. If all people close their eyes and sit still saying if the food comes, we eat, how is the world to get on? Hence one must take things as they come in accordance with one’s traditions and must be free from the feeling that one is doing them oneself. The feeling that I am doing it is bondage. It is therefore necessary to consider and find out the method whereby such a feeling can be overcome, instead of doubting as to whether medicine should be administered if one is sick or whether food should be taken if one is hungry; such doubts will continue to come up and will never end. Even such doubts as, ‘May I groan if there is pain? May I inhale air after exhaling?’ also occur.

So thoughtlessness is not our real nature rather i would say without having any attachment of thoughts which does not implant vasanas are our real nature.

Quote
Small desires such as the desire to eat, drink and sleep and attend to calls of nature, though these may also be classed among desires, you can safely satisfy. They will not implant vasanas in your mind, necessitating further birth. Those activities are just necessary to carry on life and are not likely to develop or leave behind vasanas or tendencies. As a general rule, therefore, there is no harm in satisfying a desire where the satisfaction will not lead to further desires by creating vasanas in the mind. (Day by Day with Bhagavan, 12th April, 1946)

eranilkumarsinha

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3768
    • View Profile
Re: Why is thoughtlessness samadhi ?
« Reply #68 on: July 28, 2010, 04:23:04 PM »
Very well explained,Sir.Your post has given me clarity on the topic under discussion.
My view in this regard is not different from you. I also understand that at present
I am not in my natural state and I have to regain it or become it by efforts or by self enquiry and I
 have to keep it on till that is achieved.

 Thank you so much ,Sir.

                                 Anil     

atmavichar100

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2307
    • View Profile
Re: Why is thoughtlessness samadhi ?
« Reply #69 on: November 29, 2012, 09:31:59 PM »
There are many cases in the king-beggar analogy, which brings out many finer points.

Case 1: The king is seen as a beggar:
- The king goes to a foreign country and people mistake him as a beggar. However the king knows that he is a king and is not bothered how the people see him.

- In terms of rope and snake, little boys decorate a rope as a snake (maybe to scare others), but a person who knows it as a rope is not bothered about it.

- The king here is not the absolute controller of the situations. He has no control over how the people will perceive him in the foreign country. The person who sees the decorated rope has no control over how the little boys will decorate the rope. Even though, the king knows himself as a king, there exist others who thinks themselves as beggars.

- In this case the king has no thoughts since he does not participate in the situations. The person does not participate in the game of little boys and hence has no thoughts.


Case 2: The king plays the role of a beggar for duty:
- The king plays the role of a beggar to find out the situation in his kingdom.

- The person participates in the rope-snake game with the little boys to teach the little boys.

- The king again is not the absolute controller. He does not control external situations and works within the scheme of duty.

- In this case, the king and the person has thoughts of duty.


Case 3: The king plays the role of beggar for advantage:
- The king has to present himself as a beggar to other people to get some advantage from them.

- The person has to show the little boys his fear to get some advantage from them.

- The king again is not the absolute controller.

- In this case there are either thoughts of some bondage, or it is a trivial common sense situation.


Case 4: The king plays the role of a beggar out of joy of his kingly nature:
- The king is overjoyed with his kingly nature and plays the role of a beggar to enjoy his kingly nature. Here we are entering the territory of leela.

- The person out of joy of knowing the rope participates in the game with the little boys.

- The king again is not the absolute controller.

- In this case there are self-created thoughts. These thoughts does not bind the king but are an expression of the knowledge and freedom. The king has a sense of non-duality knowing that there is a kingly nature (which he is), and he also has a sense of duality seeing the relative world.


Case 5: The king plays the role of a beggar out of joy of seeing kingly nature everywhere:
- The king is overjoyed seeing the kingly nature in everything. He plays different roles to enjoy the kingly nature and expresses the joy of the kingly nature in the relative world.

As far as I have understood Sri Ramakrishna's sayings, Sri Ramakrishna called this case as vijnana. The vijnani performs leela to milk the joy of Brahman seeing the same divine essence everywhere. He assumes different roles and plays with different roles.

- The vijnani has thoughts, thoughts of leela, which are self-created. Standing on non-duality he puts on the garb of duality to enjoy Brahman and share its joy in the world of duality.

- However, in this case also the king may not have absolute control over everything.
He may not have any control over how the relative world originate, how beggars even though kings still thinks themselves as beggars.

- The entity which has absolute control over everything, which is in everything, which is everything, Sri Ramakrishna calls as Shakti or Divine Mother (whose passive state is Brahman).


Case 6: The king is the absolute controller (Shakti or Divine Mother) and plays all roles:
- The difference between absolute controller and non-absolute controller can be described with the wave-ocean analogy:
-- A non-absolute controller king even as wave knows himself as the ocean (the king). He however does not control other waves in the ocean nor has he the power to create waves in the ocean. An absolute controller even as a wave can control all the other waves and is the creator of all the waves.
--- An absolute controller can create maya which is a perfect art in the following sense:
When we try to play chess alone, there arises the difficulty that one side knows the thoughts of the other side. So here unity is preventing the joy of the game. Maya is such a perfect art that unity does not prevent joy in the game. Here the art of partitioning is perfect.
-- A non-absolute controller wave does not graduate and become an absolute controller wave. His only route is to merge in the ocean and stay as the ocean awareness. An absolute-controller wave is of a different nature.

- The Divine Mother can remain as the ocean or emerge as an absolute-controller wave incarnation.

- The Divine Mother creates stages for leela, the kings, subjects and everything from Her own nature and Herself plays through the creation. She creates joys, sorrows and many other moods.

- Obviously Divine Mother is a jnani. Whether a jnani is Divine Mother playing a role with full knowledge of Her nature, it is difficult to say.

- Obviously Divine Mother has thoughts, created by her. She not only creates thoughts for one role, but for all roles wherever applicable. However, She is also thoughtless, as Brahman. She is depicted as dancing on the bosom of Shiva. Shiva is also shown as Ardha-Narishwara.

- A beggar does not know himeself as king because of Her maya.
A beggar knows himself as a king because of her grace.
Expressing in a more non-dualistic way, a beggar knows himself as king when the Divine Mother graduates her beggar's role to king's role.


In summary:
- A king will not have thoughts if he is not participating in any play (e.g. case 1). The king will have thoughts if he is participating in a role play.

- A king who is not an absolute-controller wave stays in ocean awareness. He is not the creator of waves. The king who is an absolute-controller creates and controls all the waves.
(The absolute-controller wave concept is not accepted in all philosophies. Here it is stated to bring out different cases of the king-beggar analogy)

These inferences are based on king-beggar example and sayings of Sri Ramakrishna.

So many Cases for a King-Beggar , Snake-Rope analogy  :)
However many holy words you read, however many you speak, what good will they do you if you do not act on upon them? - Buddha

Subramanian.R

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 47084
    • View Profile
Re: Why is thoughtlessness samadhi ?
« Reply #70 on: November 30, 2012, 09:43:42 AM »
Dear silentgreen,

Nice story.  I remember one story. Once a king saw a beggar outside the temple. He simply remained Summa. He was given two
slabs of rice, by the temple priests. The king got angry and told the priests to stop giving slabs of rice for a person who remained
Summa.  The beggar told the King: Why don't you remain Summa sitting beside me for a couple of days? The king agreed thinking that to remain Summa is an easy job. A throne was brought and he was sitting with the beggar. Within a few minutes, his thoughts pervaded
to all sorts of things. His wife, his army, his palace, his harem, his Treasury etc., Finally within hours the king told that he was incapable
to remain summa. He  apologized to the beggar and then left. Before leaving, he ordered the temple priests to give the beggar
four slabs of rice!  Because he is doing something others cannot do.

Arunachala Siva.   

Nagaraj

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5130
    • View Profile
Re: Why is thoughtlessness samadhi ?
« Reply #71 on: November 30, 2012, 10:32:45 AM »
Another case,

upon waking, all is seen to be, just a dream, neither was the king nor the beggar and the rest that happened. nothing truly happened or is there to happen. Forgetfulness and remembrance both are found to be just a dream. Both knowledge and ignorance were part of that dream. First thorn was as untrue as the second thorn. The sons of a barren woman is as untrue as the barren woman itself.


The logic that tries to destroy ignorance
Is in the same category

That word that attempts to explain
The meaning of something that doesn’t exist
Only accomplishes its own destruction.

The illumination provided by the word
Does nothing to destroy ignorance;
It is like rain pouring on the ocean.

It is certain that eyesight
Cannot perceive itself,
That taste cannot taste itself,
That a person who is awake
Cannot be awakened.

jnyAnEshwar

॥ शांतमात्मनि तिष्ट ॥
Remain quietly in the Self.
~ Vasishta