[Advaita-l] Re:kundalini

[Navin Rajaram]

Hari Om,
Shri Rameshji, my thoughts are also not intended as a retort, only my 
thoughts based on my meagre understanding.

ramesh badisa wrote:

>Badisa: If I have understood correctly, the seeker (sadhaka) is the person, who does spiritual sadhana while living. Right? However, the 8/24 path of Gita and other upanishads talk about the path of the eligible soul to reach Brahma Lok. It means that Brahma Lok (or for that matter any other lok) is not just something to denote different states of spiritual evolution of the seeker. Because, it is the eligible soul that take up the journey to Brahma Lok as described in scriptures, not the physical body of the sadhaka (seeker). In that case, where is the question that Brahma Lok denotes different states of spiritual evolution on the part of seeker.  
>  
>
Rameshji, I am unaware about the technicalities of different Lokas. The 
Devi Bhagwatam which my father studied, talks about different lokas 
people go to based on their actions. For example, if you were to kill a 
mosquito you will get banished to so and so Loka. While I am inclined to 
respect these concepts, I also find that this sort of Loka structure is 
intended to discipline action /karma so that man strives to use his life 
to shed identifications and seek realization.
If we do talk about realization, then I understand that the JivaAtma 
that realizes its true nature resides in the state of knowledge of its 
true nature for as long as it remains in its mortal (physical) shell. 
Towards the end of that mortality period, the Atma goes back to its 
source by virtue of that realization - the Source being Brahman. 
Whether, the Atma specifically resides in a place/location we may call 
Brahma Loka or not is debatable. That would mean that we constrain the 
Source itself to a location.
Therefore, it is my belief that the conditioned consciousness that is 
inside every one of us would no longer be distinguishable from its 
Source - that is all pervading. No limits, no constraints, no locations.
It is this thought that leads me to believe Brahma Loka or any such 
thoughts cannot be constraints to what is already limitless and 
indescribable.


> 
>
>Once realized,staying realized - that would be it. Anything other than that cannot be called realization can it? Considering that there are different schools - Dvaita,Vishishtaadvaita 
>
>and Advaita - one can easily see that such schools of thought have sprung from seekers who stabilized at different levels ....  
> 
>
>>... of realization.
>>    
>>
>
>Badisa: Not so please. Realization (what ever it may be) is same for all.
>  
>

I do not intend to advocate supremacy of any school of thought. 
Specifically, Advaita appeals to me the most because of the nature/level 
of realization. If realization were the same for all people - they would 
not differ on the nuances of realization. Different schools would have 
agreed that realization is of the same nature and left it at that. 
Instead we have schools that define Iswara as being separate. That - to 
me - is Bhakti where there is a heirarchy involved. While, this nature 
of realization cultivates humility and ego-shedding, it is but a 
level/step towards the ultimate goal - that of being ONE/SAME as the 
material and efficient cause of the universe. Some people choose to stop 
at a point where they see Iswara(a personal God) in everyone. The 
realized Advaitin sees Nirguna Brahman(impersonal God) in everyone. 
Hence, the reason for stating different levels of realization - whereas 
true realization could be defined in the Advaitic sense(with no intended 
superiority).

Maybe at the top - everyone is the same. However, the way they look at 
it are different.

Hari Om,
Navin