Truth

[sadananda]

Nagy wrote:

>I still do not understand why you call it ananda.  You say Anantameva Ananda.
>Ananda is not a feeling that is ones intrisic nature.  Ananda is limitless and
>sorrow comes from limitation.  Happiness and Sorrow those are the two words
>humans are familiar with.

Nagy

Sorry if I am not clear.  Let me put it this way.  This is where the
difference between experience and knowledge  comes in.  We experience
ananda when our desires are fulfilled and sorrow otherwise.  In those
moments of the experience of ananda, the mind is quiet, free from any
wanting or wishing or free from agitations or free from limitations.  I am
in my natural state.  If there is an iota of discontentment - such as I am
happy, but;   that - but - makes a difference. There is still discontented
mind and or wanting mind.  My mind remains in that quite or happy state
until I have another desire - back to agitations and to actions.  Life goes
on this way.

It is because of these rare moments of happiness, I do have some
understanding of what is to be happy but still I donot have an
understanding that I am that Happiness. This is where the problem comes in.
I only understand that I am happy because of having this or getting rid of
this etc.  We become experience hunters.

Remember experience is not knowledge.  Some time back I had posted what is
the difference between experience and knowledge.  But briefly, we do
experience Brahman all the time because we are that Brahman.  But we have
no knowledge that we are Brahman.  Experience can lead to knowledge, if it
is supported by proper inquiry - that is where the teacher supported by
scriptures help us. Knowledge can confirm and/or contradict experience.
Knowledge can resolve the contradictions in experience.  But knowledge
cannot be contradicted.  Familiar example is the sunrise and sunset that we
experience everyday. Knowledge is that there is no sunrise and sunset.  But
this comes only by proper inquiry supported by Shastras and expounded by a
teacher.

Yes, we are familiar with the two words - happiness and sorrow since we
experience these.  But we have not understood by these experiences that
happiness that we gain is not from outside but being myself free from
wanting and wishing.  We attribute that we are happy because of having this
etc.

>To explain Brahman we use the word ananda.
>(Satchidananda).  If you know Brahman there is no need to explain with such
>words as ananda etc.  There is no nagy to explain to.   Brahman is one with no
>second.   It is not, I believe, ananda or anything, we just dont know.

Yes Brahman does not need scriptures or explanations or gurus or these
discussions.

Nagy here the problem is the reference from which we talk.  Please read
Vidya's recent response on Essence of Advaita.  He has touched based
clearly the misunderstandings that can arise when one looses the
perspective.

All this talk and discussions are valid from the reference of Jeeva who
wants to realize. From Jeeva's point it is sat chit ananda - satyam JNaanam
anantam. From Brahman point I am that I am - period. It is not even saying
something but being that I am.

In Satdarshan - Bhagavaan Ramana's first sloka which is actually an
invocation sloka, it itself is an eye-opening.  He says I what to think of
the Lord. How can I think of the Lord who is beyond the thoughts.  Only
thing to do is to be established in that state - beyond the thoughts. - no
more thinking or talking.

Explanations are at relative level. From the relative level, the scripture
points out to the truth using the feeble vocabulary the jeeva is familiar
to take him beyond the vocabulary - that sat chit ananda - is ekameeva
adviteeyam - one without a second and you are that - hence you and that -
that relative distinctions are no more there. It is beyond distinctions,
differentiation's - sajaati, vijaati swagata bhedaas.  It is one
homogeneous mass of existence, consciousness and bliss.

>  Ananda to me means
>happiness.
>Brahman I dont know it definitely is not ananda and dhukkam
>(happiness/sorrow).
>
>Brahman is satyam, Jnaanam anantam.

Nagy if we truly understand the meaning of satyam, JNaanam and anantam as
Brahman that I am, then all these discussions are fulfilled.  There is not
much of difference between what you understand versus what I explained.
The contextual meanings of what you understand as ananda or sorrow are all
dissolved into that anantam that I am.

My sincere suggestion is not get bogged down with the meanings of the words
etc. but shift your mind to that beyond the words and the meanings,  to
that which illumines these understandings of the words and the meanings. As
Kena thunders again and again:

 yan manasaa na manute yenaahur manomatam|
 tadeva brhma twam viddi nedam yadidamupaasate||

That which mind cannot think but because of which the mind has the capacity
to think, know that to be the Brahman not that this that you worship here.

As JK puts it - it is an understanding as an understanding as fact, and not
as an understanding as an understanding as a thought.

I am that becomes experience and knowledge as one.

Let us resolve to be in that state with the coming of the New Year.  My
New Year Greetings to all.


Hari Om!
Sadananda




K. Sadananda
Code 6323
Naval Research Laboratory
Washington D.C. 20375
Voice (202)767-2117
Fax:(202)767-2623