Author Topic: Self-enquiry as taught by Sri Bhagwan is enough  (Read 755711 times)

Jewell

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6079
  • Love,always love and only love
    • View Profile
Re: Self-enquiry as taught by Sri Bhagwan is enough
« Reply #2265 on: September 13, 2012, 07:08:01 PM »
Dear Sri Anil,

I think that we cant use Bhagavan words just like that. Coz He answered on many question,to many different people,so today we are reading that in the form of book. But He didnt gave same answer to everyone. It depends who asked the question,way asked in the first place. So Only ultimate teaching which i can use like that is Be still.

Also,dear Sri Anil,it is only my seeing of it.

Subramanian.R

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 43530
    • View Profile
Re: Self-enquiry as taught by Sri Bhagwan is enough
« Reply #2266 on: September 13, 2012, 07:43:11 PM »
Dear Jewell,

Yes. Suddha  Manas is the Consciousness. Sri Bhagvan has said this in Talks 314:

...This brings us o the conclusion that the cognizer, cognition, and the cognized are present in all the three states, thogh
there are differences in their subtleties. In  the transitional states, though they are the Aham (I) is Suddha (pure). Because
'idam' (this) is suppressed. Aham (I) predominates.  'Why is not that pure 'I' realized even  now or even remembered by us?
Because of want of acquaintance with it. It can be recognized only if it is consciously attained. Therefore make all effort and gain
consciously.

Again Guru Vachaka Kovai, Verse 760:

If that mind free self consciousness, which is at the meeting point of deep sleep and waking somehow becomes continousness,
then that state that then dawns is declared by Sages to the state of deliverance.

Again Padamalai, Verse 553:

In  order to make the mind which whirls like a top, be still, become the one who sleeps in the Heart, and realize the Truth.

Again Sri Bhagavan describes mruta manas (dead mind). Atman is realized with mruta manas (dead mind) that is,
MIND FEE OF ALL THOUGHTS AND TURNED INWARD/ Then the mind  sees its own source and becomes That.

(Talks 99 & Padamalai 1293, 2148.)

Arunachala Siva,     

   

eranilkumarsinha

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3573
    • View Profile
Re: Self-enquiry as taught by Sri Bhagwan is enough
« Reply #2267 on: September 13, 2012, 07:49:33 PM »
Quote from sri Jewell:
“The sattvic mind is the Absolute consciousness,but stiil consciousness. How any kind of consciousness can be Reality? That implies duality,subject.”

Dear Sri Jewell,

The above basic premise on which you have based your understanding is absolutely unacceptable to me. I am sorry, but that is totally contrary to my intuition and understanding. Right now, I have to attend my duty. However, if I get some spare time, I shall attempt to post a detailed reply tomorrow.

Thanks very much.
Pranam,
  Anil


Jewell

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6079
  • Love,always love and only love
    • View Profile
Re: Self-enquiry as taught by Sri Bhagwan is enough
« Reply #2268 on: September 13, 2012, 08:15:08 PM »
Dear Sri Anil,

I only tried to say that that statement itself is correct,but Your understanding,for me,totally contradictory. "The sattvic mind is the Absolute consciousness". The statement is that the mind is Absolute Consciousness,in this case sattvic,but still mind.
That statement dont say the sattvic mind is The Supreme,or Ultimate reality,but Absolute Consciousness. I dont see any contradiction in it.

And,dont be sorry dear Sri Anil,i dont mind. Your thinking on this differs from mine,and there is nothing wrong in it. Thats whay we talk about it,we cant agree on everything. I also dont want to upset You,or anyone,only to say what i think about some subject.

Have a nice day dear Sri Anil.

Ravi.N

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4001
    • View Profile
Re: Self-enquiry as taught by Sri Bhagwan is enough
« Reply #2269 on: September 13, 2012, 09:14:13 PM »
Friends,
What is pure mind?What is Satvic mind?What is consciousness and what is absolute consciousness?
It is interesting to see how Sri Ramakrishna explains these in a simple manner.I will give a few excerpts from The Gospel of Sri Ramakrishna:

Pure Mind
SADHAKA: "Is it possible to see God?"
MASTER: "He is unknowable by the mind engrossed in worldliness. One cannot attain
God if one has even a trace of attachment to 'woman and gold'. But He is knowable by the
pure mind and the pure intelligence―the mind and intelligence that have not the slightest
trace of attachment. Pure Mind, Pure Intelligence, Pure Atman, are one and the same
thing."
SADHAKA: "But the scriptures say, 'From Him words and mind return baffled.' He is
unknowable by mind and words."
MASTER: "Oh, stop! One cannot understand the meaning of the scriptures without
practising spiritual discipline. What will you gain by merely uttering the word 'siddhi'? The
pundits glibly quote the scriptures; but what will that accomplish? A man does not become
intoxicated even by rubbing siddhi on his body; he must swallow it. What is the use of
merely repeating, 'There is butter in the milk'?
Turn the milk into curd and churn it. Only then will you get butter."

In other words what the Master is saying is that when the attachments fall away,the mind is called 'Pure mind' and this is the same as 'Atman' or the Self or The absolute Consciousness.It is the absolute consciousness in the sense that there is no relativity present ,no differentiation as subject and Objects.

This is how Sri Ramakrishna explains this ,so simply:
""But an aspirant cannot succeed in this form of spiritual discipline if his mind is stained
with worldliness even in the slightest degree. The mind must withdraw totally from all
objects of form, taste, smell, touch, and sound. Only thus does it become pure. The Pure
Mind is the same as the Pure Atman.
But such a mind must be altogether free from 'woman
and gold'. When it becomes pure, one has another experience. One realizes: 'God alone is
the Doer, and I am His instrument.'
One does not feel oneself to be absolutely necessary to
others either in their misery or in their happiness.
"Once a wicked man beat into unconsciousness a monk who lived in a monastery. On
regaining consciousness he was asked by his friends, 'Who is feeding you milk?' The monk
said, 'He who beat me is now feeding me.' "
M: "Yes, sir. I know that story."

Obstacles to samadhi

MASTER: "It is not enough to know it. One must assimilate its meaning. It is the thought
of worldly objects that prevents the mind from going into samadhi. One becomes
established in samadhi when one is completely rid of worldliness
."

The important thing is to understand that the Pure mind is not 'Satvic' mind!.This is how Sri Ramakrishna explains this in his inimitable fashion:

Parable of the three robbers

"Let me tell you a story. Once a rich man was passing through a forest, when three robbers
surrounded him and robbed him of all his wealth. After snatching all his possessions from
him, one of the robbers said: 'What's the good of keeping the man alive? Kill him.' Saying
this, he was about to strike their victim with his sword, when the second robber interrupted
and said: 'There's no use in killing him. Let us bind him fast and leave him here. Then he
won't be able to tell the police.' Accordingly the robbers tied him with a rope, left him, and
went away.

"After a while the third robber returned to the rich man and said: 'Ah! You're badly hurt,
aren't you? Come, I'm going to release you.' The third robber set the man free and led him
out of the forest. When .they came near the highway, the robber said, 'Follow this road and
you will reach home easily.' 'But you must come with me too', said the man. 'You have
done so much for me. We shall all be happy to see you at our home.' 'No,' said the robber,
'it is not possible for me to go there. The police will arrest me.' So saying, he left the rich
man after pointing out his way.

"Now, the first robber, who said: 'What's the good of keeping the man alive? Kill him', is
tamas. It destroys. The second robber is rajas, which binds a man to the world and
entangles him in a variety of activities. Rajas makes him forget God. Sattva alone shows
the way to God. It produces virtues like compassion, righteousness, and devotion. Again,
sattva is like the last step of the stairs. Next to it is the roof. The Supreme Brahman is man's
own abode. One cannot attain the Knowledge of Brahman unless one transcends the three
gunas."


The 'Shuddha manas' or pure mind  is one that is totally free of all attachments-i.e from the sense of 'I' and 'mine' .It sees that God alone is the doer and He himself has become the universe. It is thus different than the 'Satvic' mind which is still a mind with 'attachments',although this sort of attachment takes one 'near' God,so to say.

Namaskar.

Jewell

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6079
  • Love,always love and only love
    • View Profile
Re: Self-enquiry as taught by Sri Bhagwan is enough
« Reply #2270 on: September 13, 2012, 10:31:28 PM »
Dear Sri Ravi,

I am reading everything You wrote,and i have one dilemma now.

Quote from Sri Ravi:
"The Pure
Mind is the same as the Pure Atman. But such a mind must be altogether free from 'woman
and gold'. When it becomes pure, one has another experience. One realizes: 'God alone is
the Doer, and I am His instrument.' "

It is like this,Pure Mind is the same as the Pure Atman. And if it is without attachments and dont indentifies itself with anything,then where is the place for the mind at all? Then it doasnt exist. Only attachments and indetification made it existent,or us like different entities. Then we are already there,so our state only changes,when we are in samadhi. Or our point of view? I am not sure how to explane. So there is that Supreme state,which we call Pure mind? But then nothing really changes,only we cannot see it because of attachments? But whay we dont say than I am Self,or I am That,but we say God alone is the doer? Whay is there still God?

Ravi.N

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4001
    • View Profile
Re: Self-enquiry as taught by Sri Bhagwan is enough
« Reply #2271 on: September 13, 2012, 10:48:30 PM »
Jewell,
All these questions arise because Sages have to use 'words' to express Truth to those who have these 'Doubts'.The Right way to understand these things is not to clutch at the words but to understand what they point out.
To say "god' appeals to some people.To some others the same word God conjures up someone different than oneself ,sitting somewhere and controlling the happenings in the world.
The word 'God' is used by Sri Ramakrishna to emphasize that Truth is something intimate and part and parcel of ourselves-as we see ourselves presently.
When  the Master says That 'God alone is the Doer and I am an instrument'-it is to explain to people who have no experience that 'I' is just not there!We are unable to shake of the 'I' ,however much we may understand it intellectually.Instead of saying 'I' is not there,the Master is saying 'I' is dummy,a mere puppet;God alone Is the 'Doer'.Here again ,he is talking about God as the 'Doer' simply because we are unable to get rid of 'Doership'!
In saying 'God Alone is the doer,I am an instrument'-he is simply expressing that God alone is[/b and the 'Doer' part of it is to make us understand that if at all there is any 'Doership',it is all God's and the 'I' is only a dummy.This is another way of saying that there is no such a thing like 'I',it is a non-entity and is only an appearance and false.
It is like saying that 'I have Zero Dollars in my Bank account'.An account with Zero Dollars is as good as no account in the bank!
Namaskar.

Ravi.N

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4001
    • View Profile
Re: Self-enquiry as taught by Sri Bhagwan is enough
« Reply #2272 on: September 13, 2012, 10:57:07 PM »
Jewell/Friends,
Here is how sri Bhagavan explains the necessity of having to use 'words' for seekers who have doubts.
18th June, 1936
Talk 204.
Maharshi on Self-Illumination: The ‘I’ concept is the ego. I-illumination
is the Realisation of the Real Self. It is ever shining forth as ‘I-I’ in
the intellectual sheath. It is pure Knowledge; relative knowledge is
only a concept.
The bliss of the blissful sheath is also but a concept.
Unless there is the experience, however subtle it is, one cannot say
“I slept happily”. From his intellect he speaks of his blissful sheath.
The bliss of sleep is but a concept to the person, the same as intellect.
However, the concept of experience is exceedingly subtle in sleep.
Experience is not possible without simultaneous knowledge of it
(i.e. relative knowledge).
The inherent nature of the Self is Bliss. Some kind of knowledge has
to be admitted, even in the realisation of Supreme Bliss. It may be
said to be subtler than the subtlest.
The word vijnana (clear knowledge) is used both to denote the
Realisation of the Self and knowing the objects. The Self is wisdom.
It functions in two ways. When associated with the ego the knowledge
is objective (vijnana). When divested of the ego and the Universal Self
is realised, it is also called vijnana. The word raises a mental concept.
Therefore we say that the Self-Realised Sage knows by his mind, but
his mind is pure. Again we say that the vibrating mind is impure and
the placid mind is pure. The pure mind is itself Brahman; therefore it
follows that Brahman is not other than the mind of the sage
.

The Mundaka Upanishad says: “The knower of Brahman becomes
the Self of Brahman.” Is it not ludicrous? To know Him and become
Him? They are mere words. The sage is Brahman - that is all. Mental
functioning is necessary to communicate his experience. He is said to
be contemplating the unbroken expanse. The Creator, Suka and others
are also said never to swerve from such contemplation.
'Quotation from Tejo Bindu Upanishad in Sanskrit'
- Tejo Bindu Upanishad. 1 - 47
Such ‘contemplation’ is again a mere word. How is that to be
contemplated unless it is divided (into the contemplator and the
contemplated). When undivided, how is contemplation possible? What
function can Infinity have? Do we say that a river after its discharge
into the ocean has become an ocean-like river? Why should we then
speak of contemplation which has become unbroken, as being that of
unbroken Infinity? The statement must be understood in the spirit in
which it is made. It signifies the merging into the Infinite.
Self-Illumination or Self-Realisation is similar to it. The Self is ever
shining. What does this ‘I-illumination’ mean then? The expression
is an implied admission of mind function.
The gods and the sages experience the Infinite continuously and
eternally, without their vision being obscured at any moment. Their
minds are surmised by the spectators to function; but in fact they
do not. Such surmise is due to the sense of individuality in those
who draw inferences. There is no mental function in the absence of
individuality. Individuality and mind functions are co-existent. The
one cannot remain without the other
.
The light of the Self can be experienced only in the intellectual sheath.
Therefore vijnana of whatever kind (of object or of the Self) depends
on the Self being Pure Knowledge.


Namaskar.

Hari

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1832
    • View Profile
    • Fundamental questions about mind
Re: Self-enquiry as taught by Sri Bhagwan is enough
« Reply #2273 on: September 13, 2012, 11:07:21 PM »
Dear Sri Anil,

I think that we cant use Bhagavan words just like that. Coz He answered on many question,to many different people,so today we are reading that in the form of book. But He didnt gave same answer to everyone. It depends who asked the question,way asked in the first place. So Only ultimate teaching which i can use like that is Be still.

Also,dear Sri Anil,it is only my seeing of it.

Yes, dear Jewell. That's right. The Highest Teaching of Lord Ramana is everything is Consciousness and only It exists. Even 'be still' is tricky because who is to be still after all? But because His visitors could not comprehend the implication of this statement He has given explanation according to the understanding and beliefs of the questioner. He was not a Jnani like the most. That's may be because He has not 'become enlightened' under any philosophical system or spiritual teacher or particular religion. His mind was a mind of ordinary 16 years old young boy.
Web Page dedicated to the Great Sages:
https://someoneelsebg.000webhostapp.com/Sages/HTML.html

Jewell

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6079
  • Love,always love and only love
    • View Profile
Re: Self-enquiry as taught by Sri Bhagwan is enough
« Reply #2274 on: September 13, 2012, 11:09:02 PM »
Dear Sri Ravi,

I understand. You are right,the problems is in words,and in doubts. I will now ponder over Your new answer,about what Bhagavan said about it.

Thank You Very much Sri Ravi!

Jewell

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6079
  • Love,always love and only love
    • View Profile
Re: Self-enquiry as taught by Sri Bhagwan is enough
« Reply #2275 on: September 13, 2012, 11:14:15 PM »
Dear Sri Anil,

I think that we cant use Bhagavan words just like that. Coz He answered on many question,to many different people,so today we are reading that in the form of book. But He didnt gave same answer to everyone. It depends who asked the question,way asked in the first place. So Only ultimate teaching which i can use like that is Be still.

Also,dear Sri Anil,it is only my seeing of it.

Yes, dear Jewell. That's right. The Highest Teaching of Lord Ramana is everything is Consciousness and only It exists. Even 'be still' is tricky because who is to be still after all? But because His visitors could not comprehend the implication of this statement He has given explanation according to the understanding and beliefs of the questioner. He was not a Jnani like the most. That's may be because He has not 'become enlightened' under any philosophical system or spiritual teacher or particular religion. His mind was a mind of ordinary 16 years old young boy.

Yes dear Hari,

I was thinking about that,that even Be still cannot be used just like that. I agree on that what You said about Bhagavan and His way of teaching. That same thing is Sri Ravi trying to say to me. Every teaching according to inclination of the questioner. And i am more prone to teachings which are going stright on the point.

Ravi.N

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4001
    • View Profile
Re: Self-enquiry as taught by Sri Bhagwan is enough
« Reply #2276 on: September 13, 2012, 11:48:09 PM »
Jewell/Hari/friends,
Some people prefer to call it 'Truth' ,some as 'Self' and some as 'God'.

The Reason that some devotees prefer the word 'God' or Bhagavan is to avoid the Egoistic Feeling -'I am Self'.It is to avoid snug self sufficiency.For these devotees,to say 'I am Self' is like saying 'I am King'!It seems to them that it is another form of Glorified Egotism!

Some people prefer to use 'Self' or 'Brahman' .This way they feel that they are avoiding 'concept of God as someone else sitting up there' or to avoid so many of these 'Powers of Different Religions' vying with each other for supremacy and attention and exclusivity.They also find it difficult to relate to such a 'Being' even should He or She Exists!

Some people do not want to be caught up in either God or Self but want to Know Truth that is ever unchanging and lasting.

All these devotees have their preferred approach,but whatever be the approach,if one is sincere and earnest,one will soon understand that all these are just the same and will enjoy all these standpoints,avoiding the pitfall in each of these.

Eventually one Realizes that God or Self or Truth all mean the samething-Peace Love and Immortality or Sat-chit-Ananda.

Jewell wanted to know 'Why God'?Why Sri Ramakrishna talks about 'God' ( Bhagavan is the actual word he uses in his language).
Here is what the Master says:
Three classes of devotees

"There are three classes of devotees. The lowest one says, 'God is up there.' That is, he
points to heaven. The mediocre devotee says that God dwells in the heart as the 'Inner
Controller'. But the highest devotee says: 'God alone has become everything. All that we
perceive is so many forms of God.
' Narendra used to make fun of me and say: 'Yes, God
has become all! Then a pot is God, a cup is God!' (Laughter)

Vision of God destroys doubts

"All doubts disappear when one sees God. It is one thing to hear of God, but quite a
different thing to see Him. A man cannot have one hundred per cent conviction through
mere hearing. But if he beholds God face to face, then he is wholly convinced".

Namaskar.

Hari

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1832
    • View Profile
    • Fundamental questions about mind
Re: Self-enquiry as taught by Sri Bhagwan is enough
« Reply #2277 on: September 14, 2012, 12:07:33 AM »
Jewell/Hari/friends,
Some people prefer to call it 'Truth' ,some as 'Self' and some as 'God'.

The Reason that some devotees prefer the word 'God' or Bhagavan is to avoid the Egoistic Feeling -'I am Self'.It is to avoid snug self sufficiency.For these devotees,to say 'I am Self' is like saying 'I am King'!It seems to them that it is another form of Glorified Egotism!

Some people prefer to use 'Self' or 'Brahman' .This way they feel that they are avoiding 'concept of God as someone else sitting up there' or to avoid so many of these 'Powers of Different Religions' vying with each other for supremacy and attention and exclusivity.They also find it difficult to relate to such a 'Being' even should He or She Exists!

Some people do not want to be caught up in either God or Self but want to Know Truth that is ever unchanging and lasting.

All these devotees have their preferred approach,but whatever be the approach,if one is sincere and earnest,one will soon understand that all these are just the same and will enjoy all these standpoints,avoiding the pitfall in each of these.

Eventually one Realizes that God or Self or Truth all mean the samething-Peace Love and Immortality or Sat-chit-Ananda.

Jewell wanted to know 'Why God'?Why Sri Ramakrishna talks about 'God' ( Bhagavan is the actual word he uses in his language).
Here is what the Master says:
Three classes of devotees

"There are three classes of devotees. The lowest one says, 'God is up there.' That is, he
points to heaven. The mediocre devotee says that God dwells in the heart as the 'Inner
Controller'. But the highest devotee says: 'God alone has become everything. All that we
perceive is so many forms of God.
' Narendra used to make fun of me and say: 'Yes, God
has become all! Then a pot is God, a cup is God!' (Laughter)

Vision of God destroys doubts

"All doubts disappear when one sees God. It is one thing to hear of God, but quite a
different thing to see Him. A man cannot have one hundred per cent conviction through
mere hearing. But if he beholds God face to face, then he is wholly convinced".

Namaskar.

Yes, Sri Ravi. Let's everyone calls the Reality the way he/she likes It and let's 'worship' It the way he/she likes it. The most important thing is to 'stick to It'.
Web Page dedicated to the Great Sages:
https://someoneelsebg.000webhostapp.com/Sages/HTML.html

Jewell

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6079
  • Love,always love and only love
    • View Profile
Re: Self-enquiry as taught by Sri Bhagwan is enough
« Reply #2278 on: September 14, 2012, 02:45:47 AM »
Dear Sri Ravi, I understand what You are trying to say. We are holding on words,not watching behind the meaning of it. For me it is like that,that we are using to many words for the same thing. So when i read some answer about Reality,and the subjects related with it,i need to read 20 words,and that same thing can be told in 10 words. But it is my problem,also because language. My native language is not even Eanglish,so when i add Sanskrit words on that,it is very confusing,and unecesary too,for me. And i am more prone to differened kind of teaching. I love Sri Ramakrishna,but i understand Sri Nisargadatta better. And i am still searching too.

Hari

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1832
    • View Profile
    • Fundamental questions about mind
Re: Self-enquiry as taught by Sri Bhagwan is enough
« Reply #2279 on: September 14, 2012, 02:59:35 AM »
Dear Sri Ravi, I understand what You are trying to say. We are holding on words,not watching behind the meaning of it. For me it is like that,that we are using to many words for the same thing. So when i read some answer about Reality,and the subjects related with it,i need to read 20 words,and that same thing can be told in 10 words. But it is my problem,also because language. My native language is not even Eanglish,so when i add Sanskrit words on that,it is very confusing,and unecesary too,for me. And i am more prone to differened kind of teaching. I love Sri Ramakrishna,but i understand Sri Nisargadatta better. And i am still searching too.

Yes, I agree with Jewell. Even in this forum some members often use Sanskrit or Tamil words which I don't understand. So we must choose for ourselves which is more important - to understand the message or to serve the language. But I also understand that some Sanskrit words cannot be translated and their original use is more appropriate (but it also must be explained).

P.S. I don't mind the use of Tamil or Sanskrit words, actually I like them but please try to explain them after all so they would be useful not only for people knowing Tamil or Sanskrit but for everyone.
Web Page dedicated to the Great Sages:
https://someoneelsebg.000webhostapp.com/Sages/HTML.html