[Advaita-l] How can one claim to know Brahman?

[Mahesh Ursekar]

Pranams:

>> If one "returns to the normal state" than one has not realized Brahman at
>> all.  For Brahman is not a state but the very ground of truth,

I suppose by normal state I meant the state is which one returns after
coming down from the exalted state of Samadhi. It is not normal in the
sense of being similar to what is experienced by the average
individual but normal in the sense that one is aware of world as seen
by average individuals.

>> becomes disorganized again.)  So in Advaita Vedanta, samadhi is considered
>> a lower goal than jnana.  Unfortunately, many modern interpreters are

How can Samadhi be a lower goal? Without Samadhi all jnana is merely
an intellectual pursuit. Like Sri Ramakrisha said, the empty vessel (a
jnani) makes a lot of noise but once it is full (has experience of
Samadhi), it is silent. Another way of looking at it is that if
Brahman cannot be described in words or experienced by the senses, how
will mere intellectual knowldege of get you close to understanding it?

Regards, Mahesh


On Wed, 9 Mar 2005 14:19:15 -0500 (EST), Jaldhar H. Vyas
<jaldhar at braincells.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 9 Mar 2005, Mahesh Ursekar wrote:
> 
> > Esteemed readers,
> >
> > The seers say that when one realizes Bramhman, the knower, the knowing
> > and know become one. In that is indeed true, then when one returns to
> > the normal state,
> > how can one claim that Brahman was experienced as
> > Sat-chit-ananda? That claim can only be made if the knower was
> > different from the known during the experience.
> >
> 
> If one "returns to the normal state" than one has not realized Brahman at
> all.  For Brahman is not a state but the very ground of truth,
> consciousness, and bliss.  Samadhi is a state and oneness can be felt
> during that state (because the vrttis of the mind that cause the
> experience of duality are stilled) but it not an eternal state.  (The mind
> becomes disorganized again.)  So in Advaita Vedanta, samadhi is considered
> a lower goal than jnana.  Unfortunately, many modern interpreters are
> heedless about this distinction and cause confusion in the minds of
> sadhakas.
> 
> > One philosopher I conversed with said that the situation is similar to
> > the deep sleep state wherein one is aware of it even after the
> > experience as in the claim - "I had a deep sleep last night". However,
> > my objection to that is that nobody can describe the state of deep
> > sleep or how one felt while in that state - one can only claim to
> > being in that state after feeling refreshed the next day. However, in
> > the case of realization, one can describe, however inaccurately, the
> > experience one had during that state.
> 
> Yes because we do have some idea of what consciousness is, what truth is,
> and what ananda is.  What we don't have in samsara is _pure_ experience of
> these things.  To get this is the goal of Advaita Vedanta.  Without the
> pure experience of Brahman even these things appear to be tainted by
> defects like falsehood, turmoil, and sorrow.
> 
> --
> Jaldhar H. Vyas <jaldhar at braincells.com>
> _______________________________________________
> want to unsubscribe or change your options? See:
> http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
> Need assistance? Contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
>