[Advaita-l] Why realization is difficult?

[kuntimaddi sadananda]

PraNAms
to all.

 

This
aspect was discussed before in the My Perspective series in the past - I am
coping some segment from that - since there seems to be lot of discussion on
this topic under the heading attributes and their locus.Complete write up can
be obtained from the advaita-l archives or by going to www.advaitaforum.org
under the title- tat tvam asi. 

------------

 The
confusion for many Vedantic students can be formulated in terms of four ways: 

1.
I have an understanding, but I am not a jnaani, since I have no knowledge of
Brahman.

2.
I have understanding, but I have not realized; I am not a jiivan mukta.

3.
I have understanding, but I have no experience or Brahma anubhava, I need to
meditate on it; no more these intellectual gymnastics.

4.
I have understanding, but I am not liberated or I am not mukta.

 

These
confusions are interlinked. They get confounded by statements by some experts.
Here are some statements.  It is very
difficult to realize. Advaita is very difficult to understand, why the teaching
cannot be simple. Bhagavaan Ramanuja says jnaana yoga is paradharma, while
karma yoga is swadharma; it is better to do swadharma than paradharma, as said
by Bhagavaan Krishna. Best and simple path is prapatti or sharaNaagati.  In kaliyuga, all one has to do is bhagavat
naama samkeerthana, that is singing the glories of the Lord with the faith that
He will take care of everything. To added difficulties, some say, one has to
take up sanyaasa to realize; even if one is a jnaani. As a gRihastha, one cannot
realize; may be possible then, but not now. Even those gRihastha, who have
claimed that they have realized have not really realized, because of the
previous proposition that only sanyaasins can realize. There is a difference
between jnaani and jiivan mukta. There are several types of jiivanmuktas
(dvaita in advaita!), and the list goes on and on, and the confusion
perpetuates. In contrast, Vedanta says you are nitya mukta swaruupaH, you are
eternally free. There seems to be big misunderstanding here. 

 

The statements that I have understood Vedanta but I have not
realized, and I am looking for aatma anubhava or the experience of
self-realization, I need to meditate on it, etc., are all in a way reflections
of objectification of that Brahman with inherent remoteness associated with
it.  The Vedic statement is aham brahma
asmi – I AM BRAHMAN – it is not I will become Brahman or I have to realize
Brahman, but I am right now and right here, ihaiva, Brahman only. The tendency
to objectify Brahman occurs at subtle level, in the very longing to know
Brahman, and thereby resulting in the loss of discrimination or viveka at that
subtle level. ‘aham dhyaata param dhyeyam akhanDam khaDate katham?’- how can
you divide that indivisible as meditator and meditated, asks Dattaatreya in
avadhuuta gita. That I am the very existence-consciousness that pervades the
subject and the object, the meditator and the meditated, has to be clearly
understood using the discriminative intellect. Such a suukshma buddhi or subtle
mind develops as one constantly listens to the teachings of the scriptures
taught by a competent guru, and reflects on it until the indivisible
substantive of the subject-object duality is clearly understood. Then one
recognizes that I am – the substantive of both the subject and the object
without destroying the subject or object. It is pure understanding of a fact as
a fact. That is the knowledge that removes the wrong notions of taking ‘this’
as ‘I am’, which is the very essence of ego. That knowledge is immediate and
direct, if the pratibandhaas or obstacles for the knowledge are removed. 

....................

...........

Hari Om!

Sadananda