Realizing Transparency

An essay by Michael Damian

Self-realization is a matter of clarifying the relationship between experience and truth, which in our habitual, conventional view is entirely clouded. In this existence we can speak of three modes of perception or experience. Each of them has a different relationship to the ultimate truth. Let’s begin with the mode where most of humanity lives:

  1. Somethingness. The first mode is of finite, materialistic perception and identity—remembering that how we perceive determines our identity, and our identity conditions perception. In this mode, “God” or truth is basically seen as Nature, or Life in all its earthly wonder, its pain and pleasure, failure and triumph. In this mode everything and everyone is a “something,” a limited and known entity. A good example of perception in this mode is how children, and even some adults, will personify inanimate objects and project feelings or a soul into them. We might see everything as precious and special, but most importantly, things are regarded in their multiplicity. We see God as a great Something under which we are each another unique something, as in “all God’s children.”Love is therefore perceived as a special connection between separate entities. In egoic, finite consciousness we believe we have to fight and struggle so that “Love can win,” or that good can overcome evil. Hence, the tendency in this mode is to identify and split up into factions and parties, where we imagine we are on the side of good. Here we find all the divisive negative qualities of our limited view of somethingness. Everyone and everything gets sorted into identities and categories. There is no understanding of the unity beyond that, even though one may talk about or seek a limited unity of some kind. One does not understand precisely where and how that unity already exists; it is imagined as something—you see, another “something”—that we have to create.

Continue reading

Natural State and UG

Uppaluri Gopala Krishnamurti or more popularly known as UG was a “philosopher, a Non-guru, guru.”  Though he used to claim “that the demand for enlightenment was the only thing standing in the way of enlightenment itself,”  his close followers consider him to be a jIvanmukta. Krishnamurti himself often “referred to his state of being as the ‘natural state’.” Anon who is a frequent Commentator at this site contributes the following write up about UG’s natural state — ramesam.]

UG Anon writes:

For me to do a commentary on what U.G. has described as ‘The Natural State’, would be a very difficult thing as I would only be playing with ideas and concepts about what someone else has said, much like doing a commentary about what the Upanishads described. The closest thing would be to paraphrase some of the descriptions from what U.G. had said about it. Here is my feeble attempt:

UG makes a clear distinction between ‘states of mind’ and what happened to him. He refers to the totality of mind and all its maneuvering as having nothing to do with the ‘Natural State’. He made it clear that if anything had to be done, it was the stopping, not volitionally, of all attempts to gaining ‘understanding’, Continue reading

Q. 386 – Has enlightenment been ‘dumbed down’?

Q: Self-Realization is a very rare occurrence – the Gita states something like 1 in a billion, and there are very few authentic, fully realized beings known to us, such as Ramana Maharshi, Nisargadatta Maharaj and a few others, (as well as the great anonymous ones). Granted, the world has changed and everything is much faster than it was, but this cannot surely apply to self-realization. The Neo-Advaitins’ awakenings or enlightenments cannot possibly be synonymous with the self-realizations of the great sages such as Ramana and Nisargadatta? 

Also, the hallmark of the great sages such as those mentioned above is that they have a transparent, translucent quality that emanates contentment and  peace.  The Neo-Advaitin teachers that I have observed do not emanate peace, instead, they come across with their body-mind personality traits/baggage as either ‘manic’, ‘neurotic’, ‘depressed’, ‘nihilistic’, etc. The talking, and so much talking at that,  is coming from the mind, and not from “mauna”. It is more like a mixture of counseling, psychotherapy and psycho-babble rather than pragmatic Advaitin philosophy. 

So my question is … has self-realization been dumbed down and redefined by the Neo-Advaitins, or do they not claim full self-realization, but only to be ‘awakened’ or ‘enlightened’?   Tolle comes to mind and Mooji, too… the talking never stops.

Responses from Melanie, Martin, Ramesam, Charles, and Dennis Continue reading

akhaNDAkAra vRRitti – Some Questions

I have a few questions on the concept and origin of the term akhaNDAkAra vRRitti. Will be grateful for any contribution and thoughts on my dobuts.

1.  Does the term “akhaNDAkAra vRRitti” appear in any major upanishads or Bhagavad-Gita? If so, where (citation)?

2.  Where and by whom was the term “akhaNDAkAra vRRitti” introduced for the first time in Advaita?

3.  Is the concept “akhaNDAkAra vRRitti” an attempt to extend the process of ‘Object cognition’ by the mind as explained in Vedanta Paribhasha to the stage of Self-realization?

4.  Does it occur prior to (and hence causal to) Self-realization or is the term “akhaNDAkAra vRRitti” a post hoc  explanation of  a presumed process that might have occurred in the mind on Self-realization?

5.  Does the term have a practical utility for a seeker as a sAdhana tool? If so how?

Thanks and regards,