Agony of the soul (?) etc

[Swami Vishvarupananda]

> What is the nature of meditation?  You say it involves something more
than
> intellect.  On what basis do you make that claim?  I think it is pretty
> obvious Shankaracharya does not regard yogic insight as a valid pramana.
> He prescribes the understanding of vakyas such as tattvamasi and
reflection
> upon them.  This reflection is what is meant by meditation and I don't
see
> why anything more than ordinary intellect is needed to practice it.

If meditation is a mere exercise of the intellect, how can it lead you to
that which is beyond mind and intellect? Are you trying to say that Reality
is to be realized by what you yourself call an illusion? Are not mind and
intellect the very limitations of consciousness that keep us blind to
reality? Man, what a contradiction. It is as impossible as to look at a
thought with your physical eyes or touch the dimension of time with your
hands.
Look, I cannot show any proof to you of what meditation beyond intellectual
gymnastics means and effects. It is as if you'd ask me to show you the pain
in my arm. You are free to exercise you brains in an effort to make the
ungraspable graspable. As you believe this is the way, maybe it is better
for you to experience the boundaries yourself than to listen to my
arguments.
As far as Shankaracharya is concerned, kindly tell me, wherever he might
have said, that the intellect is able to reach that state. Shankaracharya
has presented his arguments in a way that even those with no realization
but mere logic may be convinced of the truth in his words. But behind those
well-phrased words there is a realization that has swallowed all of his
erstwhile individuality. His body, the mind, intellect and all the other
abiding tattwas have remained nothing but an anga of that nameless,
formless Reality, through which to express Itself to the world of limited
consciousness.

> One minor point.  In most disciplines, a doctorate is the beginning of
> serious research.  Still your point is taken.  The inner contemplation
you
> mention is not something that is immediately achievable and even when
> acheived is not always sustainable.  The benefit of the study of shastras
> is the strengthening and purification of the mind without which the
> discipline of contemplation is impossible.

I agree with you here, except that inner contemplation becomes sustainable.
I don't claim in any way to have achieved this, but this is the very
meaning of sadhana, to make it sustainable and remain in it, even during
daily work, till our entire being is so transformed that final realization
is achieved, which is by all means permanent. There is the case of a
beginning and therefore partial realization coming on and off, but once
full realization is attained, it is permanent. As I said before, you become
That, or rather, you find that you are That.

Greetings and Om,

Swami Vishvarupananda