Search the Community

https://www.medhajournal.com/dcar-vs-sbnr/ This is an article written by yours truly, in response to an oft-repeated admonishment about how we should never conflate the Absolute *Nondual* truth with the relative, transactional and dualistic reality. Feel free to post your reactions/comments/thoughts

In Advaita Vedanta studies, an analogy using the example of clay and pots (made of clay) is often used to illustrate the nature of Turiya and the three "normal" states of consciousness, namely waking, dreaming and deep sleep. The analogy goes like this - This analogy/example has a limited purpose, to illustrate and evoke in the mind of the student the relationship between Turiya/Atman and the three states of waking, dreaming and deep sleep. If taken too far -- for e.g. some worthies might start going into the details of comparing the chemical compositions of the clay, the firing process, the presence of the potter, etc to try and prove that the pots are indeed apart from the clay, it has gone beyond the point of utility of the example. Another example often used is that of Gold and ornaments made of gold. While Turiya is called the "4th state", it really is not a state at all. It is the Reality in which the three states of waking, dreaming and deep sleep rise and fall. That implies that Turiya is always present and available. People have argued as to why then is Turiya called the "4th"? It is done so with the intention of gradually drawing the student's attention from the everyday experiences of waking, dreaming and deep sleep to the ever-present reality of Pure Awareness (aka Turiya). This type of practice is known as "arundhati nyāya or arundhati darśana nyāya" in classical Indian systems, wherein the student's attention is gradually guided from the most obvious to the most subtle (the most subtle being the actual topic of study).

I recently had some conversations with one of my spiritual mentors and subsequently one of my spiritual brothers. The topic of being stable in the Self-knowledge came up. Being stable in the Self-knowledge to me means, never losing track of the fact that it is the Self that is witnessing all the drama which unfolds on a daily basis upon the body and the mind. Have a hard day at work or at home or in traffic or ______ (fill the blanks in)? If we get caught up in the issues (and hence suffering), then we are not stable in Self-knowledge. Because being stable means we will not suffer one bit. Even if the occurrences obfuscate our true blissful and unaffected nature for even an instant, in the very next instant the knowledge will pull us out of suffering, like a safety line will pull a bungee jumper out of the river as he/she takes a plunge. Being stable means our peaceful nature is never dependent on or is threatened by any occurrence or event. Our true nature is like the sky, which unaffected by the different shapes, sizes of clouds, winds and storms that blow across it. Similarly, irrespective of samsāra and its processes (good or bad), we are always the unaffected, unafflicted awareness.

My friend and I were having a conversation over past several days on whether it is possible for a human being to remain in the Non-dual absorption state and still be functional in the world. He quotes Lisa Cairns, whom he's found very inspiring, and says that he feels she is in such a state and that thousands of people walk around all over the world in said state. My point is however, that if one is completely in non-dual state for too long (measured in terms of days even) the physical body will die. Once one realizes the non-dual, their personality (as in mundane sense) is changed permanently, however there still remains vestiges of the original self (ego identity) albeit at a much diminished level. Without this, it would not be possible to function in the material/dualistic existence that is a result of being in this body. One can bridge the divide between duality and non-dualism, but cannot be fully immersed in the non-dual while being functional in the dual. Thoughts?

Reading through the Nisargadatta Maharaj thread I noticed that the subject of what "I am" is was broached. Most assumptions/assessment of the "I" and the "I am" in case of Advaita Vedanta are based on incomplete or incorrect knowledge of the technical terms there in. There are the terms - "paramatman/ishwara and jiva" and then there is "brahman and atman". Since Advaita Vedanta very correctly demarcates the two levels/degrees of reality/existence, it is therefore an incorrect premise to assume that the "I" (or Atman or Self) that is being referred to in AV is actually the Egoic self (or Jiva). In the traditional sense, the Jiva is that which lives (and as a corollary thereof, ceases to live). It therefore is in the realm of vyavaharika (mundane) reality. Atman is that which is Paramartha (absolute/ultimate). The vyavaharika level is dualistic and there is a separation between the Jiva and Ishwara and everything else in existence (or the living being and God). In the advaita level (paramarthika) there is no duality. So there is no separation...the Atman is also the Brahman. A very interesting discussion on this topic with Bhagavan Ramana Maharishi might help shed some light on this topic (albeit it isn't directly answered, but provides the right cues towards thinking about it) http://benegal.org/ramana_maharshi/books/tw/tw186.html