|
|
| What does it mean when it states 'self realization'? Is it something to do with seeing the world as it is? Wouldnt this be more down the lines of meditation? | |
| | |
| Self Realization is some thing which can not be described using any material description such as the one with sight, smell, taste, touch or hearing. Therefore, it is described by negation, that is by what it is not. This creates a problem for a student of material science, which is predominent in the Western world, as to how to know what the Self Realization is. The answer to that question is: It comes only by experience. One's getting that experience can not imparted on another person except as the knowledge. For example, when I see New Jersy, I can video tape it and show it to another one who has not seen NJ. Not, the same with Self Realization.
One way to describe Self Realization, which is also a negation way is as follows:
when all other realization is not taking place, some thing is realized. And, that is the Self Realization. How do you know that it is true?
a) By trust in the one who has told so. That is another anomaly with Spirituality that the best proof in Spirituality is : What is told by Vedas .. called as Agama. Where as in material science, the best proof is: What is witnessed through perception..callled as Pratyaksha.
b) By experiencing that all perceptions received so far have not resulted in complete bliss. And, one really would like to have a complete bliss. Therefore, one is forced to trust that such a bliss is possible. And, then it is possible through something which is not perceived, called Self Realization.
In the words of the great sage Patanjali...
yogashchittavruttinirodhaH ... tadaa drashtusvaruupevasthaanam.. vruttisaarupyamitaratra...etc.
BestLuck
| |
| | |
| Oops, missed one thing: Meditation is a process which leads to pacification of the mind, that is NON-perception of anything.. which results in Self Realization.
| |
| | |
| Sorry, but I really didnt understand any of that  | |
| | |
| jermay88 - 2006-09-04 2:05 PM
Sorry, but I really didnt understand any of that
Well, I should be the one to be sorry if you did not get it. Let me try again. Hoping that you are English speaking, the term ' Self Realization' has two words: Self, and Realization. First, one has to know what the Self means. And, then the Realization.
a) Self is called Atman, Jiva, Purusha, etc. in Sanskrit. What it means is as follows. If one tries to know one's own personality, nature, existence, or whatever. One finds body made up of flesh, bones, nerves, etc. All the body parts are accessible using one or more 5 senses of perception namely sight, hearing, touch, smell, and taste. Then, one understands that there is something called Mind which is made up of memory, emotions, intellect, attention, etc. These can not be accessed using the 5 senses of perception.
When a person tries to obtain happiness using any of the Body and Mind parts, he/she realizes that the happiness thus obtained is limited and also transitory. For example, one can get happiness through intercourse, but only for a given time. And, the same can not be obtained after certain age. The one who wants to obtain a happiness which never dies, searches beyond. And, then hits upon either own experience (which is extremely rare, almost never) or statement of another who has obtained such happiness. This statement is called 'agama'. This statement states that there is a reality beyond Body and Mind, and any material world. This reality never changes, it is permanent. This reality pertaining to a person is called 'Self'.
b) Realization: Now, one who trusts the agama, performs a practice called Spiritual Practice, Paramartha, Saadhana, Yoga Practice, Meditation, etc. During this practice, mind is made totally focussed and then totally disfunctional. That means realization of all material things are removed. When that happens, the realization mentioned in the agama takes place. And, that is the Self Realization.
Thus, the nature of Self Realization is given by negation of all other things realized through senses. | |
| | |
Expert Yogi
Posts: 8442
    
| jermay - meditation is one path toward self realisation. Asana and pranayama are important preparations for meditation. As Neel says, self realisation is not easily described in our feeble words. I am not sure I truly understand what it means myself. I am hoping that in the lifetime I am meant to find self realisation, I will at least be able to understand what it is properly  | |
| | |
| if you close your eyes
and stay quiet long enough
you might start to recognize the thoughts that never seem to stop running in your mind
eventually you might be able to make your mind quiet
once that happens you will be recognizing what you really are
'cause you are not your thoughts or your body or your breath
there is something beyond all that.
good luck, learn as much as you can | |
| | |
| it's the quiet spaces between thoughts that you are looking to experience during your meditation
prepare well in yogasana and pranayama | |
| | |
| jermay88 - 2006-09-03 1:08 PM
What does it mean when it states 'self realization'? Is it something to do with seeing the world as it is? Wouldnt this be more down the lines of meditation?
jermay88,
I would like to give you a simplified and simple explanation. Self realization means understanding the true nature of yours. We all are nothing but Bramhan. Because of the influence of Maya or cosmic delusion we have forgot this fact. We have forgot our true nature. Maya makes us believe that we are different from Him. Self realization is understanding this very truth that "I am Bramhan".
With the help of meditation you make your mind calm, stand still and once that happens Maya can no longer delude you. You then understand the true nature of yours. Thus Meditation is an effective way to achieve self realization.
Edited by bipinjoshi 2006-09-04 11:23 PM
| |
| | |
| jermay88 - 2006-09-04 1:08 AM
What does it mean when it states 'self realization'? Is it something to do with seeing the world as it is? Wouldnt this be more down the lines of meditation?
There are as many definitions as there are people searching and experiencing "self-realization." For me, it was the slow connection I experienced between my mind and my body. The unity of the two. I saw a direct connection between putting hateful, angry, thoughts and images into my body and my diagnosis of cancer. I also see a connection of the fruitfullness when I put healthy, positive thoughts and images into my mind, body, spirit.
I totally agree, it is typically found when we stop thinking. When our own desires, thoughts can be put to the side. I started doing it with the application of breathing techniques. When my mind would start to sway and go back to solving some problem that exists in the wordly plain of existence -- I would stop myself. Go back to the breathing meditation. Counting the breath in, holding, counting the breath out. Then I began exploring other ways to accomplish this. Breath in and focus on: I am breathing in love, compassion, strenght -- whatever I needed. On my exhale, I focus on ridding my mind & body of all that is not pure. I am breathing out hatered, fear, anger, frustrations ...
Many times when I do Yoga, walk, or meditate I am rewarded in various ways. Getting to know "SELF" is the last frontier. When your mind is empty and I am not focused on the "daily" necessities, there appears to be a connection to something much older, wiser, more discerning than myself. I have recieved many answers before I even was made aware of the question, need.
I also feel it is when we realize that we are all part of the whole wonderous changes surround us. We are all human, thereby connected through the "human experience." All life is valued and important. Self Realization has many, many layers and depths--I think the important thing to remember is to open your heart, mind and spirit in a number of ways. Yoga really did help me to open the door that allows love to be channeled through.
Stay with it and do not get discouraged. The more you practice and work at "self" the more substantial the results!
Namaste | |
| | |
| I'm brand new here (and to yoga) and just wanted to say thank you to all for the input this is very interesting and a question I've been "juggling" with myself. | |
| | |
Expert Yogi
Posts: 8442
| Hi NeeNoon and welcome  | |
| | |
| There are some great explanations in this thread. If I simplify it
self-realization is knowledge of one's true self. That cannot be taught .. It should be understood by himself though the process of improving once mind about reality of the universe and himself. Its understanding his own nature .. Uncertainty
You understand that man is the sole creator of his circumstances and his reaction to them, his future condition, and his final destiny. By right thought and action he can gradually purify his inner nature, and so by self-realization attain in time liberation from rebirth.
| |
| | |
Veteran
Posts: 258
| I stand in tadasana. How are my feet? Ah! How is my torso? Ah! How is my neck, my face, my breath? What am I feeling? What are my thoughts? : Maybe one tiny, very simple, first step, first taste, of the looong and endless process of self realization...
kristi | |
| | |
| Nice one Kristi | |
| | |
| I think I understand what Neel means by negation. I think (and hope) that there are two major shifts in perception on the spiritual journey, which I think of as awakening and enlightenment. Awakening is the unraveling of the fabric I thought was me. It's figuring out that I have been trying to map out a journey starting from a place I never really was to a place I always was. I don't know what enlightenment is but I think I know a few things it is not. I used to think it was understanding wihat it's all about, Now I think a word like understanding is completely out of context. Maybe all words are. It's really hard, but I am giving up on the knowing and working on the being or at least I am trying to. It can be really frustrating. | |
| | |
| Self realization is the process by which any human being can realize his real self. And what does this real self mean? It means that our soul (atman) within our body which is the real self within every being (and for that matter every living being) reaches the fag end of its cosmic life. The modern lifestyle is laden with stress; resulting in high blood pressure , hypertention, diabetese, cardiac prroblems etc. A slight rescheduling of daily routine will help in understanding the real self...... and live a stress free life with more performance and output.
More information is available at http//www.atmabodh.net
| |
| | |
| Unfortunately, no one can be told what the Matrix is. You have to see it for yourself. This is your last chance. After this there is no turning back. You take the blue pill, the story ends, you wake up in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe. You take the red pill, you stay in Wonderland, and I show you how deep the rabbit hole goes.... Remember, all I'm offering is the truth, nothing more.... Follow me....
~Morpheus | |
| | |
| To me, self realization is a process, not a goal.
J Krishnamurti:
"Intelligence comes into being when the mind, the heart, and the body are really harmonious."
"Self-knowledge has no end – you don’t come to an achievement, you don’t come to a conclusion. It is an endless river. As one studies it, as one goes into it more and more, one finds peace."
| |
| | |
| jimg - 2007-09-18 4:50 PM
To me, self realization is a process, not a goal.
J Krishnamurti:
"Intelligence comes into being when the mind, the heart, and the body are really harmonious."
"Self-knowledge has no end – you don’t come to an achievement, you don’t come to a conclusion. It is an endless river. As one studies it, as one goes into it more and more, one finds peace."
yes | |
| | |
| For me, Self Realization is a definite goal, and not a process. And, after Self Realization, there is nothing a person has to do in terms of realizing more. Also, I do not completley agree with J.Krishnamurthy's logic as I do not believe he was self realized. (Yes, he was a great thinker.) Unfortunately, I can not discuss it further. But, I still want to make my point. | |
| | |
| If you think self realisation is a goal your mind has all ready set up a mental construction of what it think self realisation is.
Therefore your mind is blocking anything outside it's own experience.
| |
| | |
| I do believe that infinity is real, I would even go so far to say it is palpable
that is why I agree that self realization is a process, and journey, because I don't see myself as a finite entity cut off from the rest of reality, but a part of it all, and the more you see the more you realize how much more there is to see, your horizon grows and grows, eventually the sun never sets and the light shines through and through | |
| | |
| forever | |
| | |
| I don't believe that self realisation is a process.
While there may be steps to achieving self realisation, at the end of the day you are either self realised or you're not. So for me, it's definately a goal.
Jonathon
| |
| | |
| and also, why do you Americans keep spelling realisation with a Z?
| |
| | |
| The real point is it is "both" the goal and the process are one thing.
The process "life" and being one with it is the goal.
And when there is no separation between the process and the goal,
you arrive at the goal but can't escape the process "life". | |
| | |
|
I think we're splitting hairs
goal, process
wrong or right I believe that many of us see a goal as something that once it's reached something ends---so, this is a matter of semantics
self realization is something that continues, in my opinion, it isn't something that finalizes or ends something---so once you get there, you continue to be there, on going, it is life changing
It isn't something like building a device
or gaining some monetary level
or digging a hole
It's a new life once you're there, a different way of being and seeing, yes I'll agree that you are or you aren't but once you are you don't stop with the proceedings, you continue
so the word 'goal' doesn't quite describe it properly for how it is, this isn't a soccer match
maybe if the goal could be forever, with the announcer cheering
GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAALLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL
FOR INFINITY, but still, not quite
| |
| | |
| jonnie - 2007-09-19 9:06 AM
and also, why do you Americans keep spelling realisation with a Z?
because we choose to do so
| |
| | |
| Brother SCT:
May be a small part of this discussion is what the meaning of Self Realization is.
Self Realization, if it means realizing something, and then realize something more, and then more. Then, it is a process,of course. But, if Self Realization means, Realization of the Self, then it is a goal. Let me throw another light on it.
In the Yoga Philosophy, there is a formless reality called Self, which is only one entity. And, then there is material Form-ful reality called Prakruti. Prakruti emerges out of Self, and why this happens can NEVER be known to a mind. That is given. When, one is trying to realize Self, one starts realizing prakruti as well. And, that Prakruti realization is infinite and never ends.
But, when one realizes the Self, one realizes only one thing. And, that is the Goal.
Of course, if one does not believe in the existence of Self, then his self realization is different from self realization of another person. | |
| | |
| kulkarnn - 2007-09-19 9:53 AM
Brother SCT:
May be a small part of this discussion is what the meaning of Self Realization is.
Self Realization, if it means realizing something, and then realize something more, and then more. Then, it is a process,of course. But, if Self Realization means, Realization of the Self, then it is a goal. Let me throw another light on it.
In the Yoga Philosophy, there is a formless reality called Self, which is only one entity. And, then there is material Form-ful reality called Prakruti. Prakruti emerges out of Self, and why this happens can NEVER be known to a mind. That is given. When, one is trying to realize Self, one starts realizing prakruti as well. And, that Prakruti realization is infinite and never ends.
But, when one realizes the Self, one realizes only one thing. And, that is the Goal.
Of course, if one does not believe in the existence of Self, then his self realization is different from self realization of another person.
so, self is finite?
I don't know about that, even a neutron has it's own infinity---in my opinion it is a matter of perception, and how or where you perceive from is tantamount to how your bias is expressed
There certainly exists the traditional accepted knowledge and how to discuss the pre-defined terms in the realm of that knowledge thus far, yet, in my opinion, there is more beyond it
scholarly discipline that studies what is done so far is not all conclusive, there is yet more to create, forever, and lessons yet to be written
| |
| | |
| and forever, I am learning, continually, and from that I perceive as a student | |
| | |
| Dear Brother SCT:
Self is not finite. Actually, it is Infinite. But, it is formless. Therefore its Realization is not similar to the perception of a material entity, such as 'neutron' which has its own infinity which is material infinity in terms of qualities (guna). Yes, you are correct. As for Self Realization, one can not express it completely in words. That is called beyond expression, anirvachaneeya. However, when the realization takes place, that is a definite thing and beyond that one does not realize in terms of formless reality and beyond that one becomes disinterested in perception of material items, which is an infinite learning never to be complete.
And, I agree with you. That is the problem, the concept of Self Realization comes from the PAST, called aagama. If one wants to be a student of that concept, they have to assume or in other words BLINDLY BELIEVE in it including the methods to obtain it. When they do so, they realize and they become the past for others. pratyakshaanumaanaagamaaH pramaanaani... Patanjali Ch1.
In the infinite material pereception pratyaksha is the main tool, and aagamaa is the worst tool. In the Spirituality aagamaa is the main tool, and pratyaksha is minor.
As for studies conducted, all of them are generally in ther field of material science. | |
| | |
| kulkarnn - 2007-09-19 10:50 AM
As for Self Realization, one can not express it completely in words..
this is where we agree completely, and where these forums fail to bring the consensus that obviously exists
what may look like a disagreement is not
we agree | |
| | |
| jonnie - 2007-09-19 9:06 AM
and also, why do you Americans keep spelling realisation with a Z?
In America, that is considered the correct spelling; just like color instead of colour, labor instead of labour, theater instead of theatre etc etc etc | |
| | |
| jimg - 2007-09-20 8:03 PM
jonnie - 2007-09-19 9:06 AM
and also, why do you Americans keep spelling realisation with a Z?
In America, that is considered the correct spelling; just like color instead of colour, labor instead of labour, theater instead of theatre etc etc etc
Thanks Jim, though it was a (feeble) attempt to be funny.
Jonathon
| |
| | |
Expert Yogi
Posts: 5098
Location: Somewhere in the Mountains of Western NC | The realisation vs. realization thing is a British/American thing.
My husband was schooled in the British schools of Nepal. He pronounces his Z's like a J or G would sound. It's sounds so wierd and I can't understand what he's saying half the time. We have so much fun with him learning American style language, | |
| | |
| Give us an exjamle pleaje.
Cyndi - 2007-09-19 2:03 PM
The realisation vs. realization thing is a British/American thing.
My husband was schooled in the British schools of Nepal. He pronounces his Z's like a J or G would sound. It's sounds so wierd and I can't understand what he's saying half the time. We have so much fun with him learning American style language, | |
| | |
| I don't care what self realisation is.
My point is any preconceived idea of something, no mater how scholarly, is a barrier to inquiry | |
| | |
| Phil - 2007-09-19 4:27 PM
I don't care what self realisation is.
My point is any preconceived idea of something, no mater how scholarly, is a barrier to inquiry
In the context of discovery I'd have to agree, in the context of a guided lesson, well that's something else entirely | |
| | |
Expert Yogi
Posts: 5098
Location: Somewhere in the Mountains of Western NC | kulkarnn - 2007-09-19 3:39 PM
Give us an exjamle pleaje.
 | |
| | |
Expert Yogi
Posts: 8442
| SCThornley - 2007-09-19 1:39 PM
Phil - 2007-09-19 4:27 PM
I don't care what self realisation is.
My point is any preconceived idea of something, no mater how scholarly, is a barrier to inquiry
In the context of discovery I'd have to agree, in the context of a guided lesson, well that's something else entirely
SCT - I think you said something along the lines of what I was thinking - without a preconceived idea of something one is looking for, one might pick up a squirrel from the trees instead of an apple. OTOH, one might be so stuck on the idea that an apple is round and red, that a red bouncy ball would be distracting attention from the apple tree entirely.
| |
| | |
| Dear Phil: The problem in this approach is: an inquiry is meant for finding something. Otherwise, it is not an inquiry. If you do not care about Self Realization, fine. Then you shall not be inquiring on the Self. But, you shall be inquiring about something. And, you shall have something about that something in the mind. You can call it preconceived idea or whatever you like. Phil - 2007-09-19 4:27 PM
I don't care what self realisation is.
My point is any preconceived idea of something, no mater how scholarly, is a barrier to inquiry | |
| | |
| The point about not caring about what self Re' is, is not a negative statement about inquiry in to the self.
I'm trying to show you that you are putting up a wall to what the self is if you think you have any idea what the self is.
If you take anyone's, no mater how realised, idea of what the self is from there perspective.
You will confuse yourself trying to capture someone else's experience.
Yes the SELF may be one but the prism off each persons consciousness views it uniquely.
The idea is to not have a preconceived of what the self is.
The whole art of meditation is to de-condition the mind of concepts. All concepts of "mind" no mater how holy
"If you meet the Buddha on the road kill him"
Edited by Phil 2007-09-20 9:28 AM
| |
| | |
| Thanks for the response Phil. And where did the following concept come from? Yourself or a philosophy? I am not going to Kill Buddha. I am going to make him my friend. Actually, he already is.
Phil - 2007-09-20 9:26 AM
The whole art of meditation is to de-condition the mind of concepts. All concepts of "mind" no mater how holy
"If you meet the Buddha on the road kill him" | |
| | |
| It's a Zen quote Neel...
| |
| | |
| ...this explains it quite nicely:
http://www.ordinarymind.com/koan_killing.html
| |
| | |
| Thanks Jonniebhai:
To me, this very concept is a Conditioning of Mind to that concept. | |
| | |
| Yes, exactly.
In Zen, there are apparently different levels of realisation before a practitioner achieves full realisation.
In this the same in the Hindu/Yogic approach?
| |
| | |
| Thanks jonnie for sending Neel in the right direction
I feel it saying you have to kill any concepts of what you think the Buddha is.
Because your mind can't conceive the limitless of his being.
You have to put the mind aside to hear your hearts desire.
Any mind construction blocks the voice of the heart | |
| | |
Expert Yogi
Posts: 5098
Location: Somewhere in the Mountains of Western NC | kulkarnn - 2007-09-20 10:50 AM
Thanks for the response Phil. And where did the following concept come from? Yourself or a philosophy? I am not going to Kill Buddha. I am going to make him my friend. Actually, he already is.
Phil - 2007-09-20 9:26 AM
The whole art of meditation is to de-condition the mind of concepts. All concepts of "mind" no mater how holy
"If you meet the Buddha on the road kill him"
I've been very concerned about this all day while out shopping....I could never kill Buddha, I don't care what you say Phil, | |
| | |
| In Buddhism, this concept was taken from the Vedic Philosophy, where the concept is called:
negation: This is a very very old tradition in Vedas where: the truth is described by telling what it is NOT.
Even in modern times, if you look at Nirvaanashatakam of Adi Shankara, it says: not this, not this, not this, etc. At the end it says: I am only of the form of consciousness and bliss.
The other method is to praise the lord that you are all this.
Both these approaches exactly give the same truth, regardless of the difference in the approach.
The not this not this approach is called 'na iti' 'na iti' OR 'neti neti' (NOTHING to do with Neti Pot!)
The other approach is one focusses on one one instead of many. Thus, many becomes less than many, then one, and the formless reality dawns. By assuming the formless reality in ONE that you devote to, does not create any problem in realizing that reality finally.
All these ideas exist in the past literature. During the emergence of Buddhism or formation of texts, these ideas were renamed. And, therefore, Buddhism looks like Hinduism in many respects with outer differences.
jonnie - 2007-09-20 1:43 PM
Yes, exactly.
In Zen, there are apparently different levels of realisation before a practitioner achieves full realisation.
In this the same in the Hindu/Yogic approach?
| |
| | |
| Thanks Neel.
| |
| | |
| Hi Cyndi,
Your not killing the Buddha.
Your killing you preconceived ideas, mind, of the Buddha.
So then your heart is more clear to love him. | |
| | |
Expert Yogi
Posts: 5098
Location: Somewhere in the Mountains of Western NC | Phil - 2007-09-21 7:35 AM
Hi Cyndi,
Your not killing the Buddha.
Your killing you preconceived ideas, mind, of the Buddha.
So then your heart is more clear to love him.
yes I know Phil, I was funning with you,  | |
| | |
| Cool! Sorry I was being a bit slow | |
| | |
| kulkarnn - 2007-09-20 10:47 PM
In Buddhism, this concept was taken from the Vedic Philosophy, where the concept is called:
negation: This is a very very old tradition in Vedas where: the truth is described by telling what it is NOT.
Even in modern times, if you look at Nirvaanashatakam of Adi Shankara, it says: not this, not this, not this, etc. At the end it says: I am only of the form of consciousness and bliss.
The other method is to praise the lord that you are all this.
Both these approaches exactly give the same truth, regardless of the difference in the approach.
The not this not this approach is called 'na iti' 'na iti' OR 'neti neti' (NOTHING to do with Neti Pot!)
A small correction. Neti means 'na iti', where na=not, iti=thus. Neti, therefore, means "not thus", meaning no object is ever negated (as the word 'this' may imply), but the process, method, is rejected, which is why the word 'thus' becomes relevant. So to translate neti to 'not this' is wrong. It should be 'not thus', meaning every method is negated. J Krishnamurti was following this approach without really knowing about it!
Suresh | |
| | |
| As to people who say 'self-realization' is NOT a goal, then it must be something we've already attained, in which case we wouldn't even be talking about (#1). But since we're breaking our heads over it, we haven't yet attained it, which makes 'self-realization' a goal (#2). If one still reasons that self-realization is not a goal to be attained, then does it exist at all? If it exists, then it exists as what, if not as a goal to be attained? If it exists but NOT as a goal to be attained, then have we attained it already? If so, go to #1. Else, go to #2.
Suresh
Edited by seeker 2007-10-14 7:31 AM
| |
| | |
| Dear Suresh: I like your If Then Else logic.
Actually: J Krishnamurthi is WRONG and his philosophy is only logical and not experiential. Therefore it appeals to certain section of people. And, therefore, it has not been incorporated in a generalized stream of philosophy. I do agree that he was a great thinker. But, he has not completely resolved all the missing elements, because he does NOT have experiential knowledge. Of course, with apology, I am not going to debate on him more.
I agree with your translation as Neti = na + iti = NOT + Thus. But, actually, Thus here denotes exactly what I wrote. Thus = as it is described. For example: God / Truth/ Brahman / allah/ Father is like 'thus' as described, in this particular context in Vedas. And, Na Iti or NOT THUS means that all this this description (this word I used due to this!) or all description given thus is NOT completely describing the GOD. GOD is beyond description, anirvachaniiya.
But, if I hurt your feelings as you are a student of J Krishnamurthi, I apologize. | |
| | |
| kulkarnn - 2007-10-14 6:34 AM
Actually: J Krishnamurthi is WRONG and his philosophy is only logical and not experiential. Therefore it appeals to certain section of people. And, therefore, it has not been incorporated in a generalized stream of philosophy. I do agree that he was a great thinker. But, he has not completely resolved all the missing elements, because he does NOT have experiential knowledge.
Neel,
How do you know whether J. Krishnamurti or anyone other than Neel has experiental knowledge?
Jim | |
| | |
| Dear Jimg:
If I understand you correctly (Please correct me if I did not understand you correctly)
a) you are giving me the freedom to assume myself to be experienced and to know that I am experienced and
b) what you are asking is: "How does Neel know whether anyone other than Neel has experiential knowledge?". It is like when a person bears a child, she becomes mother, and then when she raises a few children, she gets the experience of motherhood. Then, if another lady starts talking about motherhood, such as a young beautiful girl who is sleeping with men but has not produced and raised kids, but works in a world famous magazine, such as let us say, "Time", "X", "Y", etc., writes fantastic articles on "motherhood", an experienced mother shall automatically know that the girl does not have that experience, eventhough she may acknowledge the intellect in her articles. I feel the same of . J Krishnamurthy and the other inexperienced persons.
Peace
jimg - 2007-10-14 7:52 PM
kulkarnn - 2007-10-14 6:34 AM
Neel,
How do you know whether J. Krishnamurti or anyone other than Neel has experiental knowledge?
Jim Edited by kulkarnn 2007-10-14 9:40 PM
| |
| | |
| Dear Neel,
You know your own experience. You have an opinion (which could be true or not) about everyone else's experience.
Namaste,
Jim | |
| | |
| I see. Dear Jimg. No problems. If you feel more comfortable with my adding the following to my previous response, I am happy to do that:
In my opinion.......
Peace
jimg - 2007-10-15 12:57 PM
Dear Neel,
You know your own experience. You have an opinion (which could be true or not) about everyone else's experience.
Namaste,
Jim | |
| | |
| I am finally happy!! Thanks. | |
| | |
| Whatever we seek, call it self, happiness, two things are always involved.
#1 The object we're seeking must be known, or no search would be possible
#2 The object, though known, must be missing in our lives at the moment, which is why we're seeking. If it's not missing, why seek?
So both reasons are relevant. We seek happiness, because we know happiness, we've felt it as children, and so on. But that's not the only reason for search, happiness is missing as of now, which is why there's a desperate search. Or, search would be redundant.
J Krishnamurti has missed #2 completely, while maintaining a weird and illogical idea about #1. This is why his followers are very confused as to why they're searching, what they're searching for, even as they maintain that there's nothing to search for, that search itself is a problem, and so on and so forth.
Suresh | |
| | |
| Thanks Suresh very much for this valuable statement. JK has missed other points as well. But, your statement is extremely valuable. Also, to make one more statement the popularity of JK is more due to revolutionary nature of stating against the tradition. And, this wrongly assumes that Tradition is based on foolishness. Actually, Tradition is based on a very wise expeirence (such as already known happiness which is lost). And, it is clear that the followers of JK has not reached the World Peace he talked about.
I mean "In My Opinion" . Sorry for missing this.. but I am working on it.
seeker - 2007-10-16 7:45 AM
J Krishnamurti has missed #2 completely, while maintaining a weird and illogical idea about #1. This is why his followers are very confused as to why they're searching, what they're searching for, even as they maintain that there's nothing to search for, that search itself is a problem, and so on and so forth.
Suresh
Edited by kulkarnn 2007-10-16 8:33 AM
| |
| | |
| To me, "followers" of JK don't understand what he was talking about. He encouraged people to think for themselves and to find out for themselves. Following him in any way is the opposite of thinking for yourself or any kind of self-inquiry. If you get rid of tradition and authority but make the person who suggested doing so a tradition or authority, you are simply playing a game with yourself, replacing one authority with another and pretending that it is something else. | |
| | |
| jimg - 2007-10-16 1:20 PM
To me, "followers" of JK don't understand what he was talking about. He encouraged people to think for themselves and to find out for themselves. Following him in any way is the opposite of thinking for yourself or any kind of self-inquiry. If you get rid of tradition and authority but make the person who suggested doing so a tradition or authority, you are simply playing a game with yourself, replacing one authority with another and pretending that it is something else.
ahhhhh, but that's what 'followers' do in every culture, in every tradition, in every religion
as soon as the bureaucracy of of theology or philosophy takes off, the practical application for the teaching in our lives is hijacked
Better to Know than Believe | |
| | |
| While encouraging to think, there is no need to trash the tradition. Actually, many traditions themselves have encouragement to think built in. And, only thinking without practical application (mentioned by brother SCT) creates a Thinker who really can not guide the society in a substantial way. | |
| | |
| I think that the important thing is not to "follow" a tradition or individual, but rather to use traditions, individuals, experience etc as tools for learning and self-knowledge, not as ends in themselves. | |
| | |
| I sort of agree with jimg's statement above. But, it is inevitable that some traditions are going to be held high even for being chosen for taking them as guidline or taking certain aspects of them. Tradition does not necessarily mean one has to follow it hundred percent. And, that is what some on this board has called in the past as Tolerant traditions.
I personally feel that a) let those who want to follow whatever tradition they want to follow, follow it. b) any tradition should not condemn other tradition, except with a particular point which needs to be discussed. | |
| | |
| There is a good true story about tradition:
There was a very famous opera singer (tenor) who in the middle of a particular aria would always go to the back of the stage and look out the window (of the set) before continuing. Since he was so good at this role, everyone copied his action for many years. When he was an old man, he was giving a master class and a young student asked him why he looked out the window since he wasn't waiting for anyone or looking for anything and this action really didn't make any sense. The old tenor replied that the reason the he stuck his head out the window was that he always got a lot of phlem in his throat at that point and stuck his head out to spit so that his throat was clear for the high note at the end of the aria!
Questioning leads to understanding!
I think that tradition is good as long as we question and seek understanding and don't just blindly follow.
Edited by jimg 2007-10-17 1:31 PM
| |
| | |
| If we define tradition in terms of time, as did Krishnamurti, that would be ridiculous, because everything, every act, every word, every teaching, even the denial of tradition, is within the field of time, and hence that also is part of tradition. In short, there's nothing other than tradition, including its negation. This is what Krishnamurti missed, perhaps on purpose.
Suresh
Edited by seeker 2007-10-17 3:40 PM
| |
| | |
| all I'm saying is belief is not knowledge
and belief with no practice is not knowledge or realization
better to know than believe
better to do than to watch---of course, better to ask after watching and then do--it gets mixed up here because somewhere it's good to learn | |
| | |
| This may not be relevant but nonetheless I thought it was interesting. I work w/ an MD psychiatrist who is Hindu royalty who sits w/ a picture of her realized being on her desk. She is one life away from being @ the end of her path (self realization). However, if she has an impure thought or perhaps someone of a lower caste spits on her she will have to do it again. How frustrating. That is real tradition and rather binding! | |
| | |
| Can you kindly tell this in different words. I think I did not understand this post. What is 'spitting', etc? bounder - 2007-11-11 9:35 AM
This may not be relevant but nonetheless I thought it was interesting. I work w/ an MD psychiatrist who is Hindu royalty who sits w/ a picture of her realized being on her desk. She is one life away from being @ the end of her path (self realization). However, if she has an impure thought or perhaps someone of a lower caste spits on her she will have to do it again. How frustrating. That is real tradition and rather binding! | |
| | |
| Spittng like shooting saliva out of a person's mouth on another person. | |
| | |
| Hi, I am new in this site. Self Realization is the zenith of my spiritual goals. I am sure this is going to be a great experience for me to share the little that I know about Realization and to learn from the members on this site.
| |
| | |
| Hi, I am new in this site. Self Realization is the zenith of my spiritual goals. I am sure this is going to be a great experience for me to share the little that I know about Realization and to learn from the members on this site.
| |
| | |
| Hi all, For me Self Realization is the zenith of my goals that I call spiritual goals. I know that to reach this goal I have to go thru a process by practicing Meditation in order to experience the Enlightenment that will take me attain Self Realization.
| |
| | |
| Aaaaahammmmm | |
| | |
Member
Posts: 28
| jermay88 - 2006-09-05 1:08 PM
What does it mean when it states 'self realization'? Is it something to do with seeing the world as it is? Wouldnt this be more down the lines of meditation?
Are we one or are we many?
Most of us have no problem appreciating that we are all distinct individuals.
Few of us appreciate that we are all also manifestations of a single being.
Underneath all the physical and psychological layers we have the same center.
To know you are that center, the center of all, is to have self realization.
Most of us habitually identify with the physcial and psychological aspects of who we are, especially the ego.
Meditation is a practice of going into, or at least nearer to, the center. | |
| | |
| Thank you all, I enjoyed this sharing.
Humbly, realiz(s)ation (or whatever term employed) IS a non-path non-goal in that one is always realized; it is only that one thinks they are not realized due to limiting beliefs and concepts to which they cling that are ephemeral and thus subject to the dance of karmic change, or suffering. The WAY is to know thy self through as little reflections as possible until self IS. How difficult would it be to line up 100 mirrors, each at different angles, to then align a single reflected point? This is a lot of work, and it is still ONLY a reflection -- this is seeking.
There is no right or wrong; for every reflection reflects to teach a being that there is no reflection.
Realization is the direct path through one's experience. If we follow the material forms and teachings we are only then actors (egos) addicted to the seeking and thus we suffer. No matter what we "learn" we are still only spiritualized and educated actors. Books and teachers and paths are great in that they are endless and unique pointers (reflections) back into us, but these are only relativity at play. One day all beings will confront themselves and realize that the one and only "path" is through themselves. Know Thy Self.
What am I thinking and why and how is this affecting my experience? Observe the mind and the surface will settle revealing deeper and deeper layers to observe. Keep observing. What am I believing? What thoughts have collected and stagnated (weed-like) in my heart-garden and how are they limiting? What am I afraid of, and is there anything truly to fear? What is more relevant than knowing thy self? If we memorize histories and other’s experience, is this not only traveling AWAY, and through a path of mirrors?
Am I alive, dead, or neither? What is observing these thoughts and hands and this Earth? How can “I” still be aware of all that I can observe? Who is observing? Keep observing, and as you do the inner structures will break down from not being fed with illusory (ego) energetic awareness and subsequently carried away on the winds of time.
What is really going on within me that is creating these misunderstandings?
To realize, all that we THINK we are must be observed and understood as it is, so true knowing may surface, or BE.
One must know the inner-architecture to know self.
Take the mystery away. Semantics and terminologies and mythologies and theologies and spiritualities only eventually need to be released to Know. Knowledge can only destroy knowledge. All you put in to yourself will only one day need to be observed and return to the world of forms to know. Emptiness is the trumpet of self. Words and forms are not self. No-thing is what you are.
Keep it simple. The last thing a person is attracted to is the space within themselves (nobody wants to accept that they have made mistakes (grown) or that they do not understand) so they remain numb with media input and material games and perambulate through the mirrors) and thus the "path" is continually created like a tight-rope between yesterday and tomorrow when in fact only this moment and what you (they) are being IS real. There is a single point that IS; so do all that you can to deepen into the soil of this moment. If you continually drag a plant (being) and its roots (mind) through the Earth (Maya[or, illusion]) it never has the maturity of Now to bloom (realize) or embed its roots.
Embed your roots!
If you truly want to know, and have this longing NOW (be prepared for this will rock your world because this is a guaranteed and applicable teaching to TRUTH), then STOP, SIT, and OBSERVE (meditate) your inner and outer space (for they are one) until you know. Recognize the impetus to step into more reflections and stop, and continue to observe. Own your life so you can then give it back to God and BE free and the peace you ARE. When we observe through meditation we are then currently disassociated with what we are observing (i.e. seeing the forest once you are out of the trees) and who we "think” we are will naturally energetically disentangle and return to the material energetic matrix, and then WE, GOD, Brahman, the SELF, etc. is revealed; and what one thought was its center of being then "shifts" to the center of self, which is actually no center, but everywhere, and one realizes that they were/are never born or die, thought these thoughts or suffered at all and are free from ALL of this. No matter the dream, when we awaken we realize it was/is only a dream and that WE are untouchable.
Intellect will realize and experience being more than a body, or sexual identity, or being born or dying, or more than all the collected fears, or more than archeyypes and mythologies and Gods and Goddesses and etc. Intellect will be eclipsed and diluted in the ocean of knowing and SELF IS.
Until EVERYTHING is understood as a reflection - keep observing and allowing Maya to reveal Maya. Illusion exists to show you there is no illusion.
Again, after one tires and then realizes that the entire experience is only a reflection; and yes, maybe one can save the world and become a savior or avatar or whatever, but this is still only a reflected dream-savior and not the self, they, through sheer exhaustion will collapse (metaphorically) and realize as the SUN of self bursts through the clouds of mind that there is only ONE, and that they are THAT.
I am a simple man here, and thus these are simple explanations and offerings.
Concerning Killing Buddha: How can one kill themselves? We are all Buddha; for there is only ONE, is the teaching.
| |
| | |
| I hope this helps. Although different terminology is used in Sufism, Hinduism and Buddhism, the basic state of initial realisation (kensho) in all traditions requires the student to directly experience self and reality as Sunyata ('emptiness') and as non-duality. This state may or may not be complete (satori), but, using higher forms, such as Mahamudra and Dzogchen, kensho can be taken to a full and permanent state.
The following is useful guidance to help test a student's level of 'attainment', showing the different ways that realisation can manifest.
"...The Questions of the Contemplative Nyimo Gomchen and the Responses of Sakya Pandita
I reverently bow at the feet of the Holy Guru! The glorious Sakya Pandita wrote the following lines to Nyimo Gomchen, a contemplative filled with faith and spiritual aspiration, applying himself earnestly to his practice: In response to your questions:
In realizing the nature of the mind (Realisation), is there a complete grasp of the meaning of the Three Collections of Teachings and the Four Classes of Tantras?
There are two realizations: Realizing the emptiness of the mind, and realizing the union of apparent reality and the emptiness of mind. In realizing the emptiness of the mind, one does not fully grasp the meaning of the Three Collections of Teachings and the Four Classes of Tantras. With such realization one may fully comprehend the Cessation of a Listener (Shravaka), but since that cessation falls to the extreme of emptiness alone, one would not grasp the meaning of the Mahayana teachings. This is stated in all the Mahayana Sutras and Tantras. In realization of the union [of apparent reality and emptiness], there is no blemish of even the most subtle faults. It therefore holds the basis of morality, and the Collection of Vinaya is complete. Since the Heroic Samadhi and all other states of concentration arise [from such realization], the collection of Sutras is complete. Since it cognizes all knowable things, from form to the Omniscient Mind, the collection of Abhidharma is complete. And due to its comprehension of the special outer and inner dependently-related events, the Four Classes of Tantra are complete.
Are the Three Jewels complete in one's own mind? In the mere emptiness of the mind and the understanding of that emptiness, the Three Jewels are not complete. In the union of the cognition and emptiness of the mind, the seeds of the Three Jewels are complete. If one properly realizes the meaning of that union, the Three Jewels are manifestly complete.
Is a person who realizes the emptiness of the mind a Buddha?
One who has realized emptiness alone is not a Buddha. If one comprehends all knowable things, one is fully enlightened. Furthermore, there are two modes of comprehension, the comprehension that there is no realization of an ultimately (i.e. inherently) existent phenomenon; and the comprehension of all distinct, conventionally existent phenomena.
If one does not ascertain the mind, even though one accumulates merit, doesn't that [just] lead to temporary happiness?
If one does not realize the mode of existence of the mind - the meaning of emptiness - one cannot attain the joy of Liberation by means of one's collection of merit. Although that may act as a cause for the joys up to the Peak of Cyclic Existence, the collection of merit is not perfected, And, on the other hand, if one does not have knowledge of knowable objects but only realization of the emptiness of the mind, how can one be a Buddha? If that were possible, there would be Buddhas in the Nirvana of Listeners, for which there is realization of emptiness alone, and there would also be Buddhas in empty space. But how could there be Buddhas there? Thus the assertion of all the Sutras and Tantras is that Buddhahood occurs through knowledge of all knowable objects and through realization that there is no inherent nature to be realized, i.e. knowing that of which there is nothing to be known,
At what point does one have the certainty of attaining Enlightenment?
Some people realize the emptiness of the mind alone, but have not perfected the qualities of the Method aspect of the training. Some have such qualities, but do not realize the emptiness of the mind. Some have both, but they are not able to guide their practice of the Method with their knowledge. Some have the other qualities, but since they lack the lineage of blessing, they are unable to generate the Clear Appearance. Thus, I fear that Buddhahood is far from them. Since I have a number of these attributes, I hope to attain Enlightenment, but not by the swift means.
This concludes my responses to the questions of the contemplative Nyimo Gomchen.
(This unedited translation was prepared under the guidance of Lama Tashi Namgyal by B. Alan Wallace (Gelong Jhampa Kelsang) at ©Sakya Thubten Kunga Choling in Victoria, B.C., August 1984).
Edited by Souladarity 2009-03-02 6:44 AM
| |
| | |
| Hi, Mr. neel and all of you have brought in good perspective on SR. Few points from myside: "Who am I?" is question that can lead to it. As mind is very limited, as it cannot go beyong Time, Space and casualty of cause and effect, it's imperative that it be kept quite or otherwise, be good servent as supposed to be a master. Generally three states of consciousness pre-dominates in every day life - Wake, sleep, dreamless sleep. I woud say, "wake" following by "sleep full of dream" while 'THAT' exists in all three states. However, there is another state called 'TURIYA' where it can take us beyond the conditions of time, space and cause/effect. It's my understanding that in that Turiya state, one comes to all there is to know. Yoga, meditation leads to that state and rest is only experienced.
| |
| | |
| perhaps, that's why it's called "Self Realization" as we are already PURE and PERFECT but mind has been so conditioned that we aren't aware of it. It's not possible through mind as it is the barrier. To transcend mind, becomes really difficult in mordern context unless we lead simple life style. That's why Yoga / meditation becomes important as it attempt to restore the purity. | |
| | |
| What is Self-realization? The question begins with the human inquiry. Who Am I?
What is to be realized? The true nature of the Self. Be still and know. In listening to the silence one can discern the real from the unreal, the transient from the eternal. Transcendental knowledge the only truth that can answer your question comes from silence and appears as grace.
Self- realization arises in the heart of those who surrender to the Divine within, that is without beginning or end. Enlightenment is your natural state of being. There is nothing to be realized. You are all that you seek.
"In order to transcend the darkness of ignorance, we must become the light of the truth." Santi Devi
santidevi
Edited by santidevi 2009-06-02 3:41 PM
| |
| | |
| selt realization is something like a check list to your self ...  | |
| | |
| jermay88 - 2006-09-02 3:08 PM
What does it mean when it states 'self realization'? Is it something to do with seeing the world as it is? Wouldnt this be more down the lines of meditation?
It is seeing the world more clearly through yourself. It is self understanding. "Know thy Self." - and that doesn't mean through your ego. Die to yourself and you will experience self realization through the Divine. Meditation definitely helps to put things in perspective to understanding the world through your own understanding and not through anyone else's. | |
| |
|
Self realization?