My Spiritual Quest

VK RAMAN · Post by **VK RAMAN** » 23 Sep 2010, 08:58

Ordinary human beings cannot understand this extraordinary "brahman"

srkris · Post by **srkris** » 23 Sep 2010, 12:21

cmlover wrote:srkris
Is there any reference or discussion of these concepts in any other philosophy other than in Hindu Philosophy?

Yes, most importantly in Buddhist epistemology.

This is a relevant article: http://www.realitysandwich.com/nonduali ... nd_judaism

But actually, advaita is context-free. It does not need Hinduism or any other theological base to exist. I remember having read in Shankara's Brahmasutra bhasya that in his opinion, it is not necessary for a person to be versed in the Veda to begin a study of Vedanta. He was thus apparently saying the same thing, that Advaita is not dependent on religion. You may not believe it, but I have come across christian advaitins who hold the philosophy in such high regard. Shankara himself has opined that one could have any personal god, it does not matter whom. Ultimately that is irrelevant to advaita since advaita holds that god itself is the result of a misunderstanding - a product of the lower knowledge and is not conducive to the realization of Brahman.

The fundamental error made by most persons who have misunderstood advaita (non-dualism) is to conflate it with monism, thereby conflating Brahman with a supreme god.

Non-dualism does not ipso facto mean monism. Monism is a relative concept, non-dualism is an absolute concept.

In monism, there is a single pervasive being. In advaita, there is no single being, and what is addressed is neither single nor a being. So brahman is not capable of being expressed in terms of numbers - Brahman is not single, dual, multiple, or even infinite. Brahman is "NaN" (not a number).

vasanthakokilam · Post by **vasanthakokilam** » 24 Sep 2010, 02:13

srkris: Thanks for the information so far. Though abstract, I think I get the gist of the concept. Similar to defining Brahman by what Brahman is not, you are also describing how to view the concept by pointing out all the wrong perspectives on it. Good so far.

Now, bring in the concept of mAyA according to Advaitha and what happens when mAyA is removed through whatever means.

srkris · Post by **srkris** » 24 Sep 2010, 03:18

Maya is relativity, pure and simple. What do you mean by removal of maya, from where can it be removed? Maya cannot be "removed" in any logical sense (just as a mirage cannot be "removed" from sight), however what it is can be understood.

cmlover · Post by **cmlover** » 24 Sep 2010, 03:30

nondualism is
1 = monism = judeo-christian-islamic..
0= shUnyavaada =Buddhism/Jainism/
indeterminate = advaita (Hinduism..)
Am I OK here?

vasanthakokilam · Post by **vasanthakokilam** » 24 Sep 2010, 05:20

>Maya is relativity, pure and simple.

I do not understand it. Please elaborate.

>Maya cannot be "removed" in any logical sense (just as a mirage cannot be "removed" from sight),

OK, I get that part. But then we hear people talking about removing mAyA through knowledge, meditation, bakthi, karma etc. What is all that about?

Stated in another way, are you saying then that Brahman can not be "accessed" any way since the mirage can not be removed at all ( since we live in relativity with respect to the absolute )?

Pratyaksham Bala · Post by **Pratyaksham Bala** » 24 Sep 2010, 08:59

Though it is difficult to make it simple, this is an attempt:-

At home a lump of chandana/turmeric is placed and it is assumed that it is God (AvAhanam). All 16 different respects are showered. And after that the chandana/turmeric (assumed as God) is removed to its original position (yathA-sthAnam). The puja ritual indirectly guides the devotee about the 'God of his Choice' and the Maya symbol (chandana/turmeric). Here Maya is not destroyed; it is understood and removed.

In the rope & snake story, it is easy to understand both. In the puja ritual, the symbol is easy to understand, but the 'selected God' is difficult. Repeated exercise over the years might â€˜conditionâ€™ the mind to realize the theory.

After conditioning the devotee about this Maya & the 'God of his Choice' practice, the next step would be to convey that even the 'God of his Choice' is Maya, and the Brahman is the 'Real One'! This exercise is done with the help of Temples. ... ...

Pratyaksham Bala · Post by **Pratyaksham Bala** » 24 Sep 2010, 16:07

In the next stage of conditioning, the devotee is made to realise that any God of his choice is only a Maya representation of the Brahman!

For this exercise, a stone is collected, usually from the river Narmada. This stone, called a swayambu (naturally formed), is used as the Lingam (symbol/token) to represent the Brahman. This Lingam is placed in a Yoni (seat/holder) installed in the middle of the inner main room (garbhagraha) of a Temple. This main temple will have an entrance to the East. In the southern outer wall of this Temple an idol (mUrti) of Siva is installed. As the mUrti faces South it is called dakshinA-mUrti. Similarly in the western side Vishnu is installed and in the northern side BrahmA. (BrahmA is one of the three aspects of Brahman.)

Now, if the devotee stands before Dakshinamurti and imagines that the idol and the wall behind it are transparent, he will see the Linga inside the room -- which represents Brahman! Similarly if he stands before Vishnu in the North and imagines that the idol and the wall behind it are transparent, again he will see same Linga representing Brahman. Same is the case with the northern side BrahmA idol. This exercise of going around the main inner temple repeatedly day after day might condition the devotee to realize that Siva, Vishnu and BrahmA are all the Maya aspects of the Brahman. Once this realization dawns, he will not proclaim that Siva is the only God; nor will he seek that God should be called only by the name Vishnu. He shall realize that there is only one Brahman and that the stone Lingam is the true representation of that Brahman.

But, this is not the end of the conditioning exercise. He has to realize that the Lingam itself is a Maya representation of the Brahman! â€¦ â€¦

srkris · Post by **srkris** » 25 Sep 2010, 06:29

CML, that is wrong,.the semitic religions do not officially prescribe monism. They are predominantly proponents of mono-theism, but not of monism. sUnya is not a jain concept AFAIK, it is the buddhist equivalent of Brahman. From the standpoint of relativity Brahman/Atman is sUnyam (empty). From the standpoint of absolutism, Brahman is pUrnam (complete/absolute).

vasanthakokilam wrote:I do not understand it. Please elaborate.

That would require pages of text to elaborate satisfactorily. If you understand what duality/relativity is, and what the difference between duality vs absolutism is, it should not be difficult to understand.

But then we hear people talking about removing mAyA through knowledge, meditation, bakthi, karma etc. What is all that about?

That is their mAyA (ignorance) talking.

"People" are never right. Perhaps one person may be right in any given situation, but the rest of the "people" are always wrong. Realizing brahman is next to impossible. Relativity always pulls you back into dualistic reality, and you would be striving against nature to reach the unreachable. Jnana (knowledge) can only take you to a certain distance... and even that is not easy.

Bhakti, meditation etc etc are just baloney as far as the absolute is concerned. It requires extreme arrogance to claim that a path to access absolutism has been found. We don't know any such thing. Bhakti is possible to Brahman only by confusing and conflating Brahman with a particular god. But then when Brahman is seen as a god, it's no longer brahman at all, so it's a good way to fool oneself.

Stated in another way, are you saying then that Brahman can not be "accessed" any way since the mirage can not be removed at all ( since we live in relativity with respect to the absolute )?

It's a perfectly futile attempt to "access" brahman. Brahman is not a destination to be accessed/reached. Where does Brahman reside? What is the path to access or reach out to Brahman? A person who claims to "have access" to brahman should therefore have nature within his/her control. Nature is mAyA, and since the person has violated nature by claiming to have made the leap from a relative world into an absolute state, he therefore has defied relativity and hence relativity/mAyA doesnt affect him anymore. Has any human been able to control nature so as to defy it completely? Nature catches up with him and he dies no later than other humans, that's all happens. He fooled himself in the process.

cmlover · Post by **cmlover** » 25 Sep 2010, 21:17

Correct me if I am wrong, you are leading towards agnosticism. That has no place in Hindu Philosophy except for the single reference in Nasadiya sukta. The western ideas are very clear and many scientists belong to that clan. I have read Ingersoll but never agreed with him. I can digest the Communist philosophy: "God is not a negotiable commodity and we are not interested in Him". Now where are you coming from?

srkris · Post by **srkris** » 26 Sep 2010, 03:34

The question is not relevant. No one can be agnostic to Brahman, because vedanta is not a religion, Brahman is not a god.

ragam-talam · Post by **ragam-talam** » 27 Sep 2010, 14:51

No one can be agnostic to Brahman

Well, not being sure if Brahman exists or not is tantamount to being agnostic about Brahman!

srkris · Post by **srkris** » 27 Sep 2010, 20:06

There is nothing unsure about the existence or non-existence of Brahman. Brahman can neither exist nor not-exist, because existence and non-existence are relative concepts.

Therefore one cannot be agnostic about Brahman.

ragam-talam · Post by **ragam-talam** » 30 Sep 2010, 01:20

Brahman can neither exist nor not-exist

Hmm, sounds like a bit of verbal jugglery to me.
Define Brahman in simple, clear terms.

srkris · Post by **srkris** » 30 Sep 2010, 02:29

Brahman is not male/female - not a 'he/she'.
Brahman is not an object/thing - not an 'it'

How can one define Brahman, that is not a he or a she or an it? Brahman does not have an identity, the word "Brahman" itself is used only as a relative identifier (some sort of a UID that the early Vedantins applied for the un-identifiable absolute).

Tell me how to define such a Brahman and I will do it.

vasanthakokilam · Post by **vasanthakokilam** » 30 Sep 2010, 04:04

srkris, that is where metaphors help, so we at least have an idea. Otherwise, anyone can string together a bunch not-this, not-that. One can easily create something fanciful by taking a Boolean valued attribute whose values are true and false and then say this one is neither true nor false...

srkris · Post by **srkris** » 30 Sep 2010, 19:33

vasanthakokilam wrote:Otherwise, anyone can string together a bunch not-this, not-that. One can easily create something fanciful by taking a Boolean valued attribute whose values are true and false and then say this one is neither true nor false...

Can you give me an example?

ragam-talam · Post by **ragam-talam** » 01 Oct 2010, 01:50

Brahman does sound a lot like God (and I don't mean the usual 'taking care of everyone' version of god here!), based on descriptions of it. Just another word, it seems. Take e.g. srkris's use of the phrase 'un-identifiable absolute' to describe brahman!

Surely brahman, god etc transcend language?

vasanthakokilam · Post by **vasanthakokilam** » 01 Oct 2010, 03:27

Can you give me an example?

What I meant there is, it is much easier to describe something as not this, and not that for every boolean valued attribute. But then it becomes incomprehensible to us. At that point, what is the value of such a description, especially if that is devoid of any religious significance? At least, in the religious context, people can use that "not this/not that" to approximately imagine something that is not describable. That is fine. Outside of such religious contexts, other use of such a description is in developing a philosophical theory, a meta-physics. That is what I am getting at. What is that meta-physics that can result from such a description? Meaning, what is the use/benefits of such a description?

Just to be sure, I do not intend to ask this question in an argumentative way because I have an opposite point of view. It is more for a discussion purpose and I am using these questions to get to some points.
So do not take it as a counter-point to your point, thus requiring defense of what you wrote.

I do not think I can present any examples that are drastically different from what you have already provided.
like "Brahman is not male/female - not a 'he/she'." and "Brahman is not an object/thing - not an 'it'"
but here is my try.. Let me use "!" to represent the logical not and the word "not' to describe the opposite value of an attribute.

Attribute: Solid. Brahman is ! "solid or not-solid or both or neither" and this is not same as "not-solid AND ! not-solid AND ! both AND ! either'.
Attribute: Exist. Brahman "does not exist". "! 'does not exist'", "exists and does not exist", "exists or does not exist".

etc. Mind spinning stuff.. Essentially create logical contradictions of the extreme degree.

Then add in the caveat that our brains are tuned to thinking logically and rationally and so it can fathom such contradictory propositions. Fine. Where do we go from there? (When Physics comes to the same realization about its concepts, it relies on math.)

arasi · Post by **arasi** » 01 Oct 2010, 04:46

The learned ones:
How would you interpret these lines from the rAmAyanA?
param bramha param tatvam param gnyAnam param tapaha
param bIjam param kshEtram param kAraNa kAraNam--and then goes on to describe vishNu, as trjaDA sees rAmA in her dream??
Though I get the meaning, and am asking the same question as r-t, I suppose.

srkris · Post by **srkris** » 01 Oct 2010, 15:47

Arasi, I am not learned enough in the Ramayana, and have never seen this verse before - which book/chapter/verse from the Ramayana?

There is no para-brahman because "para-" is a superlative adjective, and all positive/comparative/superlatives are inapplicable to Brahman since Brahman is non-dual.

Superlatives apply only to non-absolutes. For example if I say "that is the best Icecream ever", it means there are other ice-creams that are not the best. So if there is a highest god, then there are lower gods. Such comparisons are suitable for singular/plural objects or things. There is no para-brahman since there are no lower brahmans around. Brahman is not a singular, nor a plural. It means that Brahman is not countable in numbers since all countable things are not absolute. Brahman does not have a form or a description because brahman is not a person or a thing. Hence Brahman cannot be a God, a god is a person.

I hope therefore that I have answered R-T and you.

What I meant there is, it is much easier to describe something as not this, and not that for every boolean valued attribute. But then it becomes incomprehensible to us.
You have then made a false assumption that Brahman posesses boolean valued attributes and is therefore a relative "thing" that can be described positively. Further using neither-this nor-that (mutual exclusions) for relative things would make the statements absurd, because all relative things have alteast one mutually exclusive boolean attribute. Such descriptions are not applicable to brahman. The comparison is ab-initio void.

At that point, what is the value of such a description, especially if that is devoid of any religious significance? At least, in the religious context, people can use that "not this/not that" to approximately imagine something that is not describable.
Brahman has nothing to do with religious significance. The Hindu religious traditions have usurped the concept of Brahman to give more credibility to their own religious ideas. It does not change what Advaita is supposed to be. This is quite similar to how Buddhist philosophy was usurped by the later sramanas to make it a religion.

If you are still looking for water in the mirage, you have not yet understood that it is a mirage. Similarly, if you still think of Gods when you are aspiring for non-dual realization, you are nowhere near that realization. A god logically cannot be an absolute, and an absolute cannot logically be a god.

Why is advaita a jnana marga? One has to shed all false notions and understandings to really come to an authentic understanding of non-duality.

One has to be emphatic about denying the godly nature of Brahman because unless the denial is emphatic, people with a religious bent of mind are so very eager to associate their favourite god to Brahman. However this is not done out of disrespect to their religious beliefs but just to keep it a matter of fact..

What is that meta-physics that can result from such a description? Meaning, what is the use/benefits of such a description?
Please note that there is no description. There is no ultimate use of a non-description.

Mind spinning stuff.. Essentially create logical contradictions of the extreme degree.
Yes, but only if you make invalid assumptions about Brahman, as in your first statement about boolean valued attributes.

ragam-talam · Post by **ragam-talam** » 02 Oct 2010, 02:38

Hence Brahman cannot be a God, a god is a person.

God is a person? Really?

If you read thru this description of Brahman, it sounds more like a description of god (again, I am NOT talking about the 'one who takes care of things, etc' version of god here!).

It may have become fashionable amongst some vedantists to pooh-pooh the concept of god - but they seem to have substituted it with another word that means the same thing!

srkris · Post by **srkris** » 02 Oct 2010, 02:46

Of course one needs only to read the wikipedia to know what Brahman is.

arasi · Post by **arasi** » 02 Oct 2010, 07:02

srkris,
The passage is from sundara kANDam.

vasanthakokilam · Post by **vasanthakokilam** » 02 Oct 2010, 08:04

srkris, I brought up the boolean valued attribute mainly based on you using such things in a prior post. Anyway, it does not matter.

Now,

Two questions:
1) If a philosophy talks about Non-duality ( brahman ) and duality ( non brahman ) and contrasts one with the other, what is its real description of reality by that philosophy? Dual or non-dual ?

That is, the very discussion of non-dual vs ! non-dual is dual. You talk about Brahman being non-dual. But what about those non-brahmans, like you and I. They are ! non-dual, right? Now you have got yourself a comparison to Brahman. That would be a contradiction, would n't it?.
( this is the self reference problem that I mentioned before, but we do not need to go there now. )

2)
>Why is advaita a jnana marga? One has to shed all false notions and understandings to really come
>to an authentic understanding of non-duality.

Would it be possible for a (! non-dual ) entity to do that without really becoming non-dual ?

ragam-talam · Post by **ragam-talam** » 02 Oct 2010, 16:41

srkris wrote:Of course one needs only to read the wikipedia to know what Brahman is.

Welcome to the 21st century and the internet!

Are you saying the contents at the cited wiki-page are incorrect? If not, why don't you address the content, rather than the location where it resides?

The wiki page merely summarises information collated from various other sources.

srkris · Post by **srkris** » 02 Oct 2010, 22:48

VK, those are good logical questions.

1. Non-duality is not the boolean alternative of duality (except in a relative sense where all things that are subject to discussion can be made boolean). So again you seemed to have brought the boolean thing in. We are ! non-Brahman in the same sense that we are not Brahman. So there is no contradiction and no comparison.

2. It is impossible to "become" non-dual. Further "doing" something is possible only in a relative (! non-dual) sense. Why I scoffed at the wikipedia link is not because WP cannot contain truth (it usually does not), but because knowledge cannot exist about Brahman. Knowledge arises only by comparison. For example, if you need to know what note it is in a raga, you need to compare/discriminate it with the other notes, if a performer plays just one swara, and didnt tell you which pitch or swara it was, how would you know what note that is, or would it even be relevant to "know" what it is? Therefore Knowledge arises only upon discrimination. Discrimination is only possible within duality. There is therefore no knowledge that can exist about an absolute (Brahman). Therefore Brahman is nirvisesha (undifferentiated).

vasanthakokilam · Post by **vasanthakokilam** » 03 Oct 2010, 00:45

>because knowledge cannot exist about Brahman

OK, now we are at the crux of the matter.

Now, you "know" knowledge can not exist about Brahman. Isn't that knowledge in itself?

arasi · Post by **arasi** » 03 Oct 2010, 01:10

Somewhat a Zen zone, everything, yet nothing?

srkris,
The verse I cited continues into describing vishNu (shanka cakra gadhaha) and then goes on to say 'SrImAn sasarja raghu nandanaha'! In the aSOka vana scene, trijaTa speaking of her dream after hanumAn's appearance before sItA.

srkris · Post by **srkris** » 04 Oct 2010, 00:54

vasanthakokilam wrote:Now, you "know" knowledge can not exist about Brahman. Isn't that knowledge in itself?

Knowledge-about-knoweldge is itself relative, since all knowledge is relative. We can know absolutely nothing about Brahman (i.e the absolute).

In other words, what you understand about the limitations of understanding an absolute, is not an understanding of the absolute, but rather an understanding only of the limitations of relative understanding. I hope this statement is not too cumbersome to follow.

If one has to understand an absolute, that understanding itself must be as much absolute as the subject (which is an absolute). Since it is not possible for our imperfect/ brains to fathom the absolute (perfection) in its most complete manner, we can only misunderstand Brahman subject to our own limitations. Such a misunderstanding of Brahman is itself not a misunderstanding in the strict sense, since only something that can be understood in the first place, can be misunderstood. Since Brahman cannot be understood, we superimpose our understanding or misunderstanding on something that we can call Brahman, but which is not Brahman at all.

Therefore the saying "The knower of Brahman is (becomes) Brahman" -- Brahmavid Brahmaiva Bhavati! The understanding of Brahman (i.e the absolute) must also be absolute, the person who understands must also be absolute, and the means of understanding must similarly be absolute. Since this is not possible, we can infer that Brahman cannot be understood in the relative sense.

The following verse (attributed to Krishna in Bhagavad Gita) describes the same thing within the metaphor of a Vedic yajna: "The sacrifice is to Brahman, the sacrificial act itself is Brahman, the performer is Brahman, the offering made in the sacrifice is also Brahman, and the object of doing the sacrifice is similarly Brahman".

brahmÄrpaá¹‡aá¹ƒ brahma havir brahmÄgnau brahmaá¹‡Ä hutam
brahmaiva tena gantavyaá¹ƒ brahma karma samÄdhinÄ (Bhagavad Gita 4.24)

The above verse is based on the allegorical meaning contained in the Puruá¹£a sÅ«kta (Rigveda 10.90), it will take a long time to explain that.

However please also note that no one can understand Brahman because one can only understand things by discriminating/differentiating the subject from other object. Brahman does not fit into the subject or object mould and cannot be differenciated from or compared with anything else, since non-duality does not allow comparison or contrast, there is nothing else to compare with because brahman is nirvisesha (undifferenciated).

Although I say Brahman "is" nirvisesha, I dont mean to impose the present tense here, since tenses imply temporal attributes, and appear to make Brahman subject to time. Time is relative by itself, so it cannot apply to Brahman.

YÄjÃ±avalkya responds to the question posed by Uá¹£asta CÄkrÄyana, as recorded in the Bá¹›hadÄraá¹‡yaka upaniá¹£ad about the unknowability of Brahman:
Uá¹£asta CÄkrÄyana: "Define Ä€tman to me, that innermost self of all beings"
YÄjÃ±avalkya: "What is this innermost self you are speaking of? It is just a label, it has no identity, it is not knowable"
Uá¹£asta CÄkrÄyana: "You should not speak thus to me in an indirect manner, just tell me like how you identify a cow or a horse, what is this Brahman? Tell me that such and such is Brahman. I dont want an indirect explanation of what it cannot be. I dont also need metaphors. Just tell me point blank what it is."
YÄjÃ±avalkya: Just as you cannot see the seer of the seeing, hear the hearer of the hearing, or understand the understander of the understanding, or experience the experiencer of the experience, one cannot "know" the Ä€tman, since it is the substratum of all that is knowable. It is not an object like a cow or a horse, hence it cannot be defined or understood. It is the absolute reality, apart from which everything else is just stupidity and uselessness. It cannot be reduced to "an understanding"
Understanding the point, Uá¹£asta CÄkrÄyana remained quiet.

The ones who are realized, being aware that all discussions about the absolute lead nowhere, usually remain silent about it, as the Tamil saying goes "à®•à®£à¯à®Ÿà®µà®°à¯ à®µà®¿à®£à¯à®Ÿà®¿à®²à®°à¯, à®µà®¿à®£à¯à®Ÿà®µà®°à¯ à®•à®£à¯à®Ÿà®¿à®²à®°à¯".

In my understanding Brahman-realization is just this - gaining discriminating knowledge (viveka jnana) about non-duality. It releases you from all kinds of ignorance & emotions, you become almost in-humanly dispassionate and illuminated. It is the nearest that we can get to the absolute when we remain alive, the rational ideal. Your personal beliefs dont matter anymore, the Gods dont matter anymore, points of view dont matter, truth and falsehood dont matter, nothing matters. Nothing else can affect that person thereafter, such is the person who has completely realized non-duality (advaita).
--------------

Arasi I am still searching the Sundara Kandam (maybe this is your way of making me read the entire Sundara Kandam haha). Any chapter and verse numbers would be helpful.

Update: I was not able to find the quoted verse, perhaps it is not a part of the original. The closest one I could get to is trijaá¹Ä saying this to sÄ«tÄ (Sundara Kanda 27th Sarga 20th Sloka - Trijata's dream):

evaá¹ƒ svapne mayÄ dá¹›á¹£á¹o rÄmo viá¹£á¹‡uparÄkramaá¸¥ |
laká¹£maá¹‡ena saha bhrÄtrÄ sÄ«tayÄ saha rÄghavaá¸¥ ||

Meaning: "In my dream, I once saw Raghava Rama, seemingly equal to Vishnu in might; present with his brother Lakshmana and Sita"

arasi · Post by **arasi** » 04 Oct 2010, 07:53

srkris,
Sorry, I was and am occupied with things which make these discussions even more meaningful in a way. I am not able to look in at the forum that regularly at this moment.
The verse is from the twenty seventh sargam of the sundara kANDam. Anyway, you would know more of the book than I do.
I am absorbed by all that you say about brahman. The quote from the gItA and kaNDavar viNDilar, viNDavar kaNDilar satisfies my questioning.
Adi andam illA (with neither a beginning nor end)--describes it too somewhat to me. And if I put the stress on 'illA' (without), it extends the meaning to the state (or the lack of it) of brahman??

ghariharan · Post by **ghariharan** » 07 Oct 2010, 13:16

Hi guys (and gals):

Just drop ALL academic discussions on the subject. Do not get side-tracked on any account from your quest for the ultimate. Stay with the I thought that everyone loves so much. This is not a japa of "I am Brahma" (Aham Brahmasmi). Try to validate your own identity. You dont have to sit in one place or at a specific time to do this enquiry. But keep it in the background at all times, whatever you are doing.This is the 'Naan Yaar' vicharam of Ramana, and 'I am that' of Nisargadatta.

It may take a few days, or several years (30 years is the average, I found). But then, at the end of it, you realise that you are chasing your own tail. That there is no person associated with the I thought. That the identification with a name and a person is itself the Ego. That this ego or jivatma is a non-existent phantom that one has closely identified with by a gross mistake.

And now that you know that you dont exist as a separate person, the ego falls away. And you wonder who was doing the self-enquiry. You dance in joy having found the ultimate truth, and want to propagate the good news to the ignoramuses of the world who are suffering unnecessarily. And then it hits you (that the ego is trying to assert itself in this process), and you laugh at the situation.

There is NO THING and it appears are EVERYTHING, including one's own body, mind, ideas, self-identification, other things in the so-called world, etc. YOU ARE THAT NOTHING-EVERYTHING.

And everything else is the same. Your own separate identity is an illusion, and so is the world's. Actions appear to take place, but there is NO DOER.

This is what Srikrishna says in the very first part of Gita Chapter 2. We all suffer because we identify with a personality, and a consequent doership/enjoymentship where none exists. We want to improve ourselves, solve problems from the ego point of status. And that is the root of all problems.

There are several websites of western advaitins which are very easy to understand advaita. Going through our own Hindu route entails a lot of religious baggage that is an impediment to the understanding of advaita. We tend to go into doctrines, trying to understand with the mind something that the mind appears in. Know that you cannot find your identity, nor be a superior state of consciousness called Turiya. YOU CANNOT HELP BEING THE SUBJECT OF ALL EXPERIENCES. All experiences come and go, and you cannot be the experience, whatever it maybe. And in the absence of a person, only experiencing is happening (appears to happen). All experiences are MITHYA created by the process of MAYA. You can only understand maya, but not overcome it. (There is a story in Bhagavatham of Narada wanting to know what maya is, and having to be put through several generational experience while actually Krishna had sent him to fetch water from a nearby river)

So relax, and start doing the Drik-Drishya vivechanam : i.e., classify/ identify everything that you encounter as the Subject (Self) or the Object. You will find that you are ever the subject, and cannot be objectified. And this subject has no identity, no properties, no shape, no limits. It is the Brahman that is talked about.

At the end of it all, dont expect to have attained any special powers (siddhis), or have a special halo around your head. Enlightenment is really very mundane, and cannot ever be attained by any person (individual entity). It is the erasure or effacement of the personality that is called enlightenment.

One more word: enlightenment happens for no reason, not because of any efforts. Because there is no person doing anything. Conceptually it is said that Atma Sakshatkara (Enlightenment) is obtained by Guru's grace. But that again is untrue, since once you know that you are no person, the guru also is seen to be no person, and a non-doer.

srkris: In my understanding Brahman-realization is just this - gaining discriminating knowledge (viveka jnana) about non-duality. It releases you from all kinds of ignorance & emotions, you become almost in-humanly dispassionate and illuminated. It is the nearest that we can get to the absolute when we remain alive, the rational ideal. Your personal beliefs dont matter anymore, the Gods dont matter anymore, points of view dont matter, truth and falsehood dont matter, nothing matters. Nothing else can affect that person thereafter, such is the person who has completely realized non-duality (advaita).

Untrue. An enlightened person just carries on with his life as before, the only difference being that he knows he is not a doer or experiencer, that whatever happens, happens. There is no cause or effect. No good or bad. No feeling of guilt or remorse. All because he is convinced that there is NO PERSON anywhere. That all is one. Other than this, he is just like any other person. He goes on with his life with a light mind. It is the One appearing as many, and for no apparent reason. He knows he is just the space in which everything appears and things go on. He knows he is not in control, never was. And so on. But, overall enlightenment is not a big deal at all.

arasi · Post by **arasi** » 07 Oct 2010, 22:35

ghariharan,
Thanks for your post...

srkris · Post by **srkris** » 08 Oct 2010, 01:10

ghariharan wrote:Untrue. An enlightened person just carries on with his life as before, the only difference being that he knows he is not a doer or experiencer, that whatever happens, happens. There is no cause or effect. No good or bad. No feeling of guilt or remorse. All because he is convinced that there is NO PERSON anywhere. That all is one. Other than this, he is just like any other person. He goes on with his life with a light mind. It is the One appearing as many, and for no apparent reason. He knows he is just the space in which everything appears and things go on. He knows he is not in control, never was. And so on. But, overall enlightenment is not a big deal at all.

ghariharan, I find several difficulties with your statements above.

#1
An enlightened person cannot carry on with his life as before, because he "the person" does not exist anymore, so unless he has perfected the art of fooling himself, he can never continue as before just with the conviction that he is not a person, for a person keeps himself convinced that he is not a person. Then he is not enlightened in the first place.

#2
If it takes him upto 30 years of effort and pondering to come to the conclusion that enlightenment is not a big deal, and he still doesnt feel remorseful for wasting it on a wild goose chase, then 30 years must really be a very small part of his life. Enlightenment is definitely a big deal worth striving for.

#3
All is one? You have now entered the realm of mathematics by your use of numbers by claiming all is one. So it should make mathematical sense. Is All = one mathematically? I dont think so. Even if it is, what is the big deal? What you think of as "one" is thought of by others as "all", and if the all is one, and one is all, enlightenment is a waste. One doesnt need to get realized to claim all is one. Enlightenment is not an assertion of facts. It is unknowable and cannot be reduced to such equations as all = 1.

#4
One appearing as many, and for no apparent reason? One appearing as many to whom? To the one? That's self-delusion, the one self got deluded! It's not enlightenment.

#5
He knows he is not in control, never was? So he was under a delusion earlier? And coming out of that is not a big deal?

#6
If Brahman is really the one, and all of us are non-persons, then it's Brahman who needs to get enlightened, for Brahman didnt get non-dual realization. It therefore follows that Brahman is not the one, Brahman is not singular, and Brahman is not even countable, and all cannot be one. This is one of the cardinal delusions that self-proclaimed advaitins get into, by claiming that All = Brahman = One, so all = Brahman, Brahman = one, and one = all. Advaita is not about the unity of all things, nor is it about identifying everything or anything with Brahman.

ghariharan · Post by **ghariharan** » 08 Oct 2010, 06:49

Brahman (and the real I) is beyond concepts, and cannot be grasped by the mind. Enlightenment consists is doing all the enquiries (yes, average 30 years for all spiritual seekers who were following nisagadatta), the mind losing its battle, understanding its own limitation, and just slumping and surrendering. The sense of ego just drops at that point, saranagathi happens, and nothing is the same everafter. All this is difficult to put in concepts that the mind can understand, and unless one goes through the process of enquiry, the mind will always try to understand, compare, conceptualise, grasp, etc. that something in which the mind itself is an appearance.

The human person is a product of society, and suffers from accepting the situation as the ultimate truth.

yes, Brahmam is in the process of playing with itself in the appearance of the worlds, persons, persons who are trying getting to enlightenment, etc.

The role of a guru is only to point out your misconceptions, not create a new state of consciousness, give new experiences, etc.

Attaining gyanam is utterly simple, and already available to everyone, and being so easy and obvious, it is always overlooked. Like when everyone says "I am watching tv", all they are doing is staring at the television screen. Similarly, people are always looking for objects, and they are always the subject, that subject can never be an object. so it cannot be found or experienced.

please follow Dayananda Sarawathi or Swami Omkarananda lectures for Drik/Drishya viveka.

Or you could go to urbangurucafe.com and listen to the podcasts.

In summary, all commentaries by the mind/ego are made because everyone is afraid of losing one's identity, and enlightenment is looking beyond the mind to ones' own presence in every experience. Even when going to Tirupathi, please understand that you are providing the Sannidhi in which the God's idol appears. No you, no world, no God, nothing. Know you, know world, know God.

ghariharan · Post by **ghariharan** » 08 Oct 2010, 08:59

The quote below is the latest entry in John Wheeler's blog.I am posting it in the hope that it may be of help to some seeker or other.

That (beingness) thou art. But even naming it as such implies that it can be described, or quantified. Such is the limitation of words. Words are not the truth. Any word points to some thing whose meaning/import we have agreed upon. And there is nothing that requires a name. It just is. So are you. What you are is beyond words or understanding. Society has given a name to which this body-mind mechanism responds, having been trained to do so. In so doing a conceptual (not real) personality is born, with ego, aspirations, goals, complaints, suffering and pain.

===================================

Quote from John Wheeler:

Relinquish all concepts and assumptions and see what is actually present in your experience. See how the universe and all bodies and minds arise and pass like specks of dust in the warmth of a vast, cloudless sky, which is the sky of your own awake being. That non-conceptual awareness or presence of life beyond the mind pours out through your senses and bathes each thought, feeling and experience in a timeless and inescapable clear cognizance. Call it what you will â€” being, awareness, love, presence, what is, knowing, light, life, intelligence, spirit, etc. Whatever it is, it is undeniable and inescapable. It is being that cannot be doubted or contradicted; awareness, unborn and undying; life with no boundaries or limitations; causeless peace and joy that embrace all appearances, all possibilities, all opposites. Nothing can be outside of that; nothing stands apart from that; there is nothing other than that. And you are that.
============end of quote================

As Krishna says in the Gita: Shraddavan labhathe jyanam. Not by learning, meditation, pooja, praja, etc.

ghariharan · Post by **ghariharan** » 08 Oct 2010, 10:29

For those who are more drawn towards the teachings of Indian gurus, here is an extract from U. G. Krishnamurthy, a non-guru, from his book, The Mystique of Enlightenment:

=============================================
THE NATURAL STATE is not the state of a self-realized, God-realized man. It is not a thing to be achieved or attained. It is not a thing to be willed into existence; it is thereâ€”it is the living state. This state is just the functional activity of life. By 'life' I do not mean something abstract; it is the life of the senses, functioning naturally without the interference of thought. Thought is an interloper, which thrusts itself into the affairs of the senses. It has a profit motive: thought directs the activity of the senses to get something out of them, and uses them to give continuity to itself.

Your natural state has no relationship whatsoever with the religious states of bliss, beatitude and ecstasy; they lie within the field of experience. Those who have led man on his search for religiousness throughout the centuries have perhaps experienced those religious states. So can you. They are thought-induced states of being, and as they come, so do they go. Krishna Consciousness, Buddha Consciousness, Christ Consciousness, or what have you, are all trips in the wrong direction: they are all within the field of time. The timeless can never be experienced, can never be grasped, contained, much less given expression to, by any man. That beaten track will lead you nowhere. There is no oasis situated yonder; you are stuck with the mirage.

You can never understand the tremendous peace that is always there within you, that is your natural state. Your trying to create a peaceful state of mind is in fact creating disturbance within you. You can only talk of peace, create a state of mind and say to yourself that you are very peacefulâ€”but that is not peace; that is violence. So there is no use in practicing peace, there is no reason to practice silence.

ghariharan · Post by **ghariharan** » 08 Oct 2010, 11:03

Some more pointers:

1. Looking at the clear night sky, what do you see? One would say, I see the moon, the innumerable stars, planets, etc. etc. The fact is you are looking at and perceiving empty space, in which the objects such as the moon and stars are only appearances.

When you open your eyes, you are always looking or peering into unlimited space. Once an object is found, the mind (thoughts) locks onto the object and starts making identifications and commentaries, how it was better before, or how it could be improved upon. Fact is: space was there for the objects to appear in.

2. When you are driving a car, or in a concert, what do you hear? One would say, the purr of the motor, street noises, good music, etc. But the fact is that you are always tuned into silence, in which these noises appear. We just ignore the silence that is always there, even though it is "heard".

3. Similarly for other senses.

4. Whatever experience occurs, including foot pain, love, dreams, thoughts, ideas, interpretations, hopes, seeking for enlightenment, there is a background of awareness/presence/being, and that is what you are, and that is what the word Brahman refers to. But the word is not the thing. The word water cannot quench thirst, the menu card listing all eatables, is not the food itself, etc.

without the background to register on, no exerience is possible. Once the enquiry is undertaken , it dawns on the seeker that he is the background awareness on which all the drama is happening.

As for his state afterward: He has seen the mirage to be what it is, a false appearance. After enlightenment he will continue to see the mirage, but for sure he knows that it is a false appearance and will not follow it to find the oasis.

Once one advances by doing drik/drishya analysis and neti-neti, of negating oneself as not the body, not the mind, and not the person, there still remains the act of seeing, hearing, and so on. Now, this perception is done by the NOTHING, the beingness, or Brahman.
This could be termed Atmasakshatkara.

But this is not the end of it. It is relatively easy to accept one's own absense, but very difficult to see that everything else is similarly the NOTHING that he himeself is. This is the ultimate realization if there is one. And then one understands the statement Vaasudeva idam sarvam.

This is true advaitic understanding.

srkris · Post by **srkris** » 08 Oct 2010, 13:32

By calling Brahman the subject, and by negating the object, you still are in relativity, yes? You also said that Brahman is the perceiver. A non-person cannot be a perceiver, perceptions happen to the person who perceives. Brahman is not your doer. Brahman does not do anything. Nor does brahman perceive or experience anything because Brahman is not a person or a thing who does your activities.

One is a real number (a relative construct), and the theory of general relativity would apply to all numbers. Brahman cannot be one. If Brahman is one, then who is not enlightened in the first place?

If you are a non-person in the absolute sense, and others are similarly non-persons, Brahman must also be a non-person. Only then can it be claimed that the Atman is identical to Brahman.

ghariharan · Post by **ghariharan** » 08 Oct 2010, 14:01

As Ramana would say, stay with the question/thought/enquiry, "Who has this doubt?". Contemplate only on that question. Other questions do not matter at all for vedantic enquiry. Mind is not the right tool for understanding Brahman, except as a concept, but as is said, that is the only tool one has. So....follow Ramana's exhortations, or go with Nissargadatta, if your mind keeps on raising doubts. Stay with the "I" thought until it kills/reveals itself as NO THING. Words are dualistic in nature and advaita cannot be reduced to dualism. As Nochur says (reportedly by Ramana) : Advaita is the only experience one has all the time, but it is simply not recognised as such by the dualistic mind. Again, SUBJECT CAN NEVER BE THE OBJECT, AND THEREFORE CANNOT BE EXPERIENCED.

Another quote attributed to Ramana, when some one asked him if he can have Grace, "Arul than eppovum irukku oye, kurukke vizundu thadukkamal irundal sari", meaning, grace is the only thing always available so long as there is no obstruction/resistance (by the mind/ego), but recognised for what it is.

Advaita is indeed paradoxical, and not subject to mathematical proof. But it is the only truth that cannot be refuted, since no one can deny one's existence. One has to go through the process of enquiry to get the understanding. And it cannot be taught, but only pointed out (Shakha-Chandra nyayam, vedantam calls this situation). Please do not limit your attention to the words and their meanings. Look where the finger points/words point. For e.g., Atma is said to be koti-surya sama prabha, and the mind learns to look for a light brighter than the sun. It is in fact, the being/presence/awareness without which even the sun cannot be known. So words are limited and false, since they depend on a common definition for communication purposes. Atma cannot be communicated, nor known directly, because, again, it remains the subject that cognises things, and never the other way. In the ultimate analysis, there is no subject/object dichotomy in the natural state. Objects appear only when the subject arises. The world is Mithya in the vedantic sense, i.e., it is an illusion, but substantive so you have to deal with it in day-to-day life.

The core of vedanta vichara and understading is summarized here:

http://www.theopensecret.com/PDF/First% ... ERE_IS.pdf

ragam-talam · Post by **ragam-talam** » 08 Oct 2010, 22:41

Nice article on this topic: http://luthar.com/the-nature-of-enlight ... n-advaita/

ghariharan · Post by **ghariharan** » 09 Oct 2010, 05:09

Thanks, Ragam-Talam for the link. It was pretty clear about what a gyani would be/do after enlightenment. The key understanding in this matter is that a jyani is a non-person, and does not attempt to change his apparent personality. More than likely that he would be no different in his actions and responses than before becoming enlightened (i.e., understanding his true nature).

I was listening to Swami Dayananda's exposition of Brahma Sutra based on Shankara's bhasya. He pointed out that in the work-a-day world, when we say I, we really refer to the Atma, not the ego. This is because, even the ego is an object known to the ultimate, indefinable subject, whereas I always refers to the chaitanya.

ragam-talam · Post by **ragam-talam** » 09 Oct 2010, 13:56

ghariharan - in one of your posts you referred to UG.

It's interesting that UG has mentioned somewhere that it's just material things that are everlasting, not soul, atman etc. Stuff keeps changing form, but it remains forever!
UG does turn things (and ideas) on their head!

vasanthakokilam · Post by **vasanthakokilam** » 10 Oct 2010, 00:10

Hariharan: What you wrote in post #88 is interesting. Setting aside the debate about if this is what the proper advaita says
about Brahman and the associated side debates, I tried to depict what you stated in pictures. See if this model captures what you wrote.

I am distinguishing here between the physical view and the logical view. The physical view consists of sensory organs and the
interpreting organ, the Brain. On the logical side, the corresponding sensory feelings and the interpreting and feeling entities are shown.
The interpreting and feeling entity is termed as the "mind/ego/I" as the counter part to the physical brian. Then I brought in your concepts of the "real I" which I am labeling
B which expands over time and eventually occupies all the space occupied by the Interpreting and Feeling entity. At this state,
the physical side, consisting of the Sensory Organs and the brain still remains obviously, on the logical side, the sensory feelings still exist
but not the usual interpreter mind/ego/I. And the realization that there is a B in every
one and they are all the same B, the big B.

All Bs are the same B

srkris · Post by **srkris** » 10 Oct 2010, 00:28

Atma cannot be communicated, nor known directly, because, again, it remains the subject that cognises things, and never the other way

1. Deep misunderstanding. All subjects are ipso-facto objects. If there is one subject, then there is ipso-facto atleast one object (like if there is night, there definitely is day; if there is joy, there is definitely sorrow; and so forth), which is called duality or relativity (dvaita). So you are advocating dvaita in the guise of advaita, and not surprisingly, it has logical fallacies.
2. Cognition needs a cognizer (i.e a mind). Since atman is not a mind, it cannot cognize anything.
3. All cognizers can cognize themselves, because of the law of general relativity. Atman cannot cognize itself since it does not have the means of cognition. Further, the subject cannot be multiple, it should be one, only then is cognition of an object possible. Therefore atman can neither be a subject nor an object.
-------------
VK, 3 questions:

1. Why should the B come in at the first place? Why was it an all fake "I" in the beginning and all real "I" at the end, and what is the difference between the all-real "I" and the all-fake "I"?
2. If the real "I" (i.e B) did not have a beginning, and was always there, how did it exist along with the fake I? Conversely how did the fake I exist at all?
3. At the end, the B becomes identical to the mind (original all-fake I), since it occupies all of the mind's former territory? If so, go back to Q1 above.

vasanthakokilam · Post by **vasanthakokilam** » 10 Oct 2010, 00:46

srkris: I have the same logical questions too. I wanted to capture in model form what hariharan said. As I wrote above, I am not sure if this captures what advaita says.

About your question 1, I had the same issue and I have updated the picture to indicate the B is always there but clouded by the Mind/ego/I .
About question 3, I do not know if the mind/ego/I disappeares completely or in a symmetric form to the initiate state, it is there imperceptibly but clouded by B.

vasanthakokilam · Post by **vasanthakokilam** » 10 Oct 2010, 00:56

>how did the fake I exist at all?

This is just the vk-rishi speaking. Since we are talking in the logical plane, one answer is, it is really a clipped form of the B with respect to dimensions. The fake I perceives only three dimensions of space and time ( in abstract terms and not physical terms ) where as the B is about greater than those 4 ( tending to infinity or actually zero since they are flip sides of the same coin ). So the differences are in the fidelity of dimensions.

ghariharan · Post by **ghariharan** » 10 Oct 2010, 19:02

Atma is the embodiment of Sat (Presence, self-cognition), Chit (awareness of other), and Ananda (Stillness, serenity, peace, whattever). This is what our scriptures say.

The ultimate subject cannot be known, but exists all the same, and can be felt/understood only in the dual state. Dvaitam is the only state in which Advaitam can be realised. Only intense passion for realization (Shraddha) is needed to understand the reality. Realization does not add one iota of what is commonly called knowledge, which can be understand logically and by the mind, by arguments, etc. On the other hand, it is the loss of the personhood, i.e., one realises that he has been brainwashed from childhood that he is a person, an independent entity, that he has to act in a certain way, achieve certain things, etc. Like the proverbial Pavlovian dog, the body-mind organism has taken this to be an image, although it cannot be seen. Personhood that is assumed to be true and apart from the world/nature at large is the illusion.

Realization consists in dropping away of this illusion, by itself. The more one does some sadhana to get realization, the more the ego-personality is strengthened. But only after long sadhana, it is realised that nothing works to attain the truth, that it is not an attainment, or reward for sadhana. This is seen only when it happens, when it dawns on the erstwhile person that he is not a person/entity at all. Surrender of the ego happens non-voluntarily. Since enlightenment is loss of personhood, it is claimed from that point onward that there are no persons doing anything. "No person can ever attain enlightenment". That time and space are mental constructs, so is the world an appearance. It is space-like awareness (NO THING) that manifests as all that is seen, and also as one's ego.

A Buddhist sutra says: Emptiness is form, and form is emptiness.

As Jeff Foster says:

The world is illusion
Brahman alone is real.
Brahman is the world.

Unless one goes through the process of self-enquiry, the above statement will not make any sense. And self-realization is a paradox in that the person realises and makes the statement that there is no person. The surrender of the ego is the real Saranagathi, unaccompanied by statements such as Swamiye saranam Iyappa, Buddham saranam gachchami, or saranam prapadye, which are still statements made by the ego, and hence strengthening the ego. Also, at that point the statement is made that no person can get enlightenment, there is no such thing as enlightenment, etc. All these are statements that are either paradoxes, or non-sensical to the person who is still a seeker.

Truth is beyond any understanding. It just is, and felt as the beingness showing up as the I thought. The world arises simultaneously. In deep sleep there is no person, no world, no urge for self-realization. On waking up, the I thought is the first to arise, and simulataneously the world. Vedantic literature says that the I thought is as if a mirror reflection of the ultimate.

It is humorous to see that once the world is seen to be an illusion, but Brahman's manifestation, the question arises whether the world is illusion or Brahman, the truth. This question leads one to a logical loop within loop within loop, ad infinitum. No answer. What is is. And there are no choices in the absence of personhood. Just as one has no choice in the functioning of one's body (breathing, secretion of juices, etc.), one has no choice-making ability, because there is no person to speak of. Life is just a wonderful mystery, a drama unfolding every moment. It is the mind that makes a story of it by stringing appearances into a story by the presence of the capacity called memory.

Visualise this: We hear a note of 200 cps, say. It is obvious that some mechanism was present to count the number of vibrations, and then string them together and interpret it as a particular note. As a matter fact, in the duration of an infinitesimally small duration, nothing really happened. Similarly life is an interpretation of nothing by the infinite power of the mind. This applies to the concept of time and space, events, etc.

One warning: At the point of so-called self-realization, the whole belief system under which the person has been operating, collapses, and there is nothing to stand on. At this stage, people can either become depressed, or suicidal. It is just like a child growing old enough and realizing there is no Santa Claus, there never was. Recovery from this sudden loss of support takes some time, but life is never the same again, and seeking just stops. The need to analyse or understand anything comes to an end. And peace ensues because of lack of any strife. And, paradoxically, faith (actually confidence) in the unknown (call it God, if you will) increases exponentially. Problems of life are taken in stride without undue anxiety (with the proviso that even if anxiety arises, it is what is supposed to arise by the will of the unknown). The non-person (call him gyani, if you will) continues with life, without too much expectation or aspiration, and in the unshakeable trust that the world will take care of itself, and, in anycase, it is all an unreal drama, a manifestation of the unmanifest.

Srkris's posting at #77 perhaps beautifully summarises the truth. Investigation on neti-neti lines will lead one to the same conclusion. The understanding is that space is known by the objective content, noise is known by the silence from which it arises, and one-ness (actually non-ness) is known by the duality that arises. It is a binary appearance, just as 0 has to assumed for the appearance of 1 (otherwise there is no need to postulate 0), advaitam NOTHING is a postulate for the play of dvaitic appearances.

Pratyaksham Bala · Post by **Pratyaksham Bala** » 10 Oct 2010, 20:10

If the cocept of Brahman is beyond comprehension, all the efforts to understand/interpret it is meaningless.

I (ego) has to exist as along as Atma has a body.

If Brahman is all-pervasive, Atma is already a part of that Brahman, whether one realises/declares that or not.

The only way available to Atma to merge with the Brahman is to shed its body! Since every Atma has to shed its body one day, merging with the Brahman is a natural process. One need not strive to reach Brahman!

ghariharan · Post by **ghariharan** » 10 Oct 2010, 20:33

Yes, vedantic enquiry is only for restless or curious seekers, not for everybody. Nothing is the result of vedantic self-enquiry, infact the self-identity (personhood, jeevatmahood, etc) is shed. By vedantic enquiry one arrives at an understanding (for want of a better word) that the activities that appear to be taking place are done by this NOTHING, and for NO REASON. The mind loses its interest in understanding, and drops the need to understand or explain or attain something.

There can be no academic "knowing" of the atma possible. Please listen to Swami Dayananda's lectures for clarification on this aspect. But the feeling of presence that everyone has is indeed the so-called atma, and not the ego. Again, listen to Swami Dayananda's lecture series on Brahma Sutra, Part 10 and 11.

In advaita vedanta, atma and brahman are one and the same, and jeevatma is a case of mistaken identity. The elimination of suffering for the jivatma takes place by knowing that there is no jeevatma in the first place. There is no solution to problems, but the realization that there is no one who has problems.

Once what is described as enlightenment happens, one can join Ramana in singing "Atma Viddhai athi sulabham". Self enquiry results in loss of the self as the ego, but still the sense of presence as the atma persists. It is for this reason that Ramana rarely answered any questions, but asked the questioner to find out the real identity of the questioner.

Self enquiry may takes long years (several births according to our Hindu tradition - bahunam janmanan anthe, says the Bhagavatham--or, is it the Bhagavth Geetha?--), but ultimately it is not an attainment of a new state of consciousness, new experiences, or acquisition of new knowledge, but simply the understanding that there is no one here to do or experience anything.

Some might find it difficult to understand the statement "Nothing appears as everything". In fact, this is the conclusion of quantum physics also, although the physicists do not say so in so many words. All atoms are 99.9999 percent empty space. This empty space appears as gold, mud, grass, human body, etc. Only the presence of chaitanyam makes the appearance of the world and all else possible for perception.

As one western advaitin put it "Enlightenment is waking tothe dream that is life (not "from"). It is a dream in which the human body is born (and dies), assumes the role of a person and suffers due to that identification as a doer-experiencer.

And, finally, it is impossible to get validation of the person or dream or advaita enlightenment from any outside source, because the outside sights and sounds are part of the dream. Thoughts and language are impediments to the quiescence of the mind. One cannot visualize thoughts without the help of language. The meaning of every word is artificially defined by common concensus, and the real is beyond the words. A rose is a rose is a rose, even without a name. So are you. You do not have an identity. But we name bodies and teach them to answer to certain names, do certain things, imagine some future prospect, etc., so that society can function. In doing so, a false personhood (jeevatma) emerges, where none exists in reality. Whatever appears to happen due to man's thought process is actually done by the Superpower through the human body. The mind-created jeevatma usurps the deed and claims doership. Once this is seen through, there is freedom. There was no bondage in the first place. So nothing is attained. Freedom cannot be attained by any person.