Still Confusion regarding Shankara's comments

[egodust]

Sadananda wrote:
>
> Now what is a thought.  Thought is a perturbation in the
> consciousness.(this itself is another thought!) When I look at a pot, and
> recognize that this is a pot is a thought in my mind and I am aware of that
> thought hence the pot thought is in my awareness.  Each a thought is a wave
> in the consciousness, the contents of each wave is nothing but
> consciousness.  Just as the contents of each wave in the ocean is nothing
> but water - in and through.  No wave can be away from water, in fact each
> wave is nothing but water and water alone but with a name and form.  Just
> the same way each thought wave is nothing but consciousness and
> consciousness alone. If one discards the name and form which are
> superficial, what remains the brahma swaruupam only - the consciousness
> which exists and which is infinite.  In fact, I do not have to discard the
> wave to see the water.  All I have to do is to shift my attention from the
> name and form to the very contents of the wave.  So is the mind.  I do not
> have to suppress the thoughts.  I have to shift my attention from the name
> and to the very contents of the thoughts.  Mind with the name and form
> disappears, mind as part of the chaitanya swaruupa remains.
>
> Hence Bhaghavaan Ramana says in Upadesha saara:
>
> Maanasantu kim maargane kRite naiva maanasam maarga arjavaat. -
> If one inquires into the mind what is the mind - then there is no mind at
> all and this is direct path of inquiry.
>
> dR^isya vaaritam chittamaatmanaaH, chitta darshanam tatva darshanam|
> discarding what is seen (the name and form) and what remains after that is
> the very contents of the mind which is nothing but in reality is the
> existence itself or realty it self.
>

precisely!

*****

Gen'l critique: some tedious reading interspersed with *brilliant* pockets
of insight...


> About Bhakti - sharaNaagati, or prapatti of vishishhTaadvaita ultimately
> involves na aham -no more ahankaara -  dissolution of I and mine notion
> that I am since I am surrendering - sarvadharmaan partityajya.  Everything
> is nothing but Eswara.  Lord alone is who obviously has to be a conscious
> entity.  Complete surrenderence should lead to JNaana - that in fact is
> true bhakti.  If the Eswara has to appear He can only give this knowledge.
> Bhakti without the fanaticism leads to the purification of the mind which
> is conducive for knowledge to take place.  Bhakti is the most powerful path
> for purification since it is easier to surrender oneself at the alter of
> love.  That is why Bhagavan Shankara himself wrote so many bhakti slokas
> recognizing that in the ultimate there is only one.  In fact any true love
> involves complete identification with the object of love.  That is the true
> surrenderance or true papatti or sharaNaagati.  Of course this is advaitic
> interpretation of Bhakti.


This brings tears to my eyes.


> About Nisargadatta MaharaJ --Studying his book " I am that" gives a clear
> impression He is one of those who has recognized that I am not this, not
> this and this but I am that - tat tvam asi. With the recognition comes with
> the understanding also -
> PrakR^ityevacha karmaani kriyamaanaani sarvashhaH
> yaH pasyati tadaatmaanam akarram sa pasyati ||
>
> That all actions are being performed by the prakriti alone.  that one who
> sees is the one who really sees.
>
> Statement that he was using tobacco is ridiculous - actions at the body,
> mind and intellect level does not belong to the consciousness or to the one
> who is established in that state.  Krishna died like any one and Shankara
> and so all mahaatmaas - but those are the attributes of the body, mind and
> intellect and does not touch the consciousness.  In that state:
> maya tata midam sarvam jagadayvakta muurthina|
> mastaani sarva bhuutani  na chaaham teshvavastitaH|
>
> I pervade this entire universe ( this entire universe in the consciousness
> alone) in an unmanifested form.  All being exist in me but I am in them, in
> the sense of their birth, decay - smoking non-smoking etc. )
>
> Of course you can believe that he has not realized, but that is your belief
> against others  belief that he has realized.
>
> For me contemplation of his teaching in the "I am that" is itself an eye
> opener.
>
> My humble prostrations to him for providing that kind of book based on his
> own experience which can help me and generations to come for their sadhana.
> My prostrations to Bhagavan Ramana who has provided  teachings of the
> great rushies in a such a simplified form.
>

Concur without reservation!


Hari OM Namo Bhagavate Sri Ramanarpanamastu!


_____________

Frank Maiello
"Who am I apart from Thee?"
http://digital.net/~egodust