Experiences

[Viswa]

Is there any such thing as "Absolute Experience"?

In my view, Experiences can be only Relative/apparent, but never Absolute. Whatever one can experience, is always bound to Duality/Subject-Object/Maya/Shakthi.

'Brahman/You/I/That/Shiva' is reality. "Brahman/I" can experience/perceive itself, only relatively but never Absolutely (it's whole potential - timeless). It Can experience itself only with Maya/Shakthi/three gunas, but never without. All experiences are bound to time, and there is no such thing as "Timeless - spaceless" experience. Even seeing God, there is a form/space between "me" and "What" is experienced, and clock runs in such experience, slow or fast anyway. If no Maya/Shakthi/energy/Relativity/three gunas/Duality, then no experience, and no way possible to know/experience/perceive itself.

What do you think?

 

[Martin]

Is there any such thing as "Absolute Experience"?

In my view, Experiences can be only Relative/apparent, but never Absolute. Whatever one can experience, is always bound to Duality/Subject-Object/Maya/Shakthi.

'Brahman/You/I/That/Shiva' is reality. "Brahman/I" can experience/perceive itself, only relatively but never Absolutely (it's whole potential - timeless). It Can experience itself only with Maya/Shakthi/three gunas, but never without. All experiences are bound to time, and there is no such thing as "Timeless - spaceless" experience. Even seeing God, there is a form/space between "me" and "What" is experienced, and clock runs in such experience, slow or fast anyway. If no Maya/Shakthi/energy/Relativity/three gunas/Duality, then no experience, and no way possible to know/experience/perceive itself.

What do you think?

I think you could talk about experience of the absolute, eg satchitananda.
Or maybe experience as the absolute?

 

[ajay0]

Enlightenment or Buddhaood can be perhaps termed as an 'absolute experience'.

The one who is enlightened however is deeply intoxicated in natural bliss that he has no interest in intellectual gymnastics, except for the purpose of education.

And yes, the enlightened is free from the subject-object nexus of duality, and are in a state of nondual perception.


Relative knowledge pertains to the mind and not to the Self. It is therefore illusory and not permanent. Take a scientist, for instance. He formulates a theory that the Earth is round and goes on to prove it on an incontrovertible basis. When he falls asleep the whole idea vanishes; his mind is left a blank. What does it matter whether the world remains round or flat when he is asleep? So you see the futility of all such relative knowledge. One should go beyond relative knowledge and abide in the Self. Real knowledge is such experience, and not apprehension by the mind. ~ Ramana Maharshi

 

[Viswa]

I think you could talk about experience of the absolute, eg satchitananda.
Or maybe experience as the absolute?

Sat-Chit-Ananda is Absolute Experience??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

Isn't it also Relative? The Highest Relative for Liberation??

Enlightenment or Buddhaood can be perhaps termed as an 'absolute experience'.

The one who is enlightened however is deeply intoxicated in natural bliss that he has no interest in intellectual gymnastics, except for the purpose of education.

And yes, the enlightened is free from the subject-object nexus of duality, and are in a state of nondual perception.


Relative knowledge pertains to the mind and not to the Self. It is therefore illusory and not permanent. Take a scientist, for instance. He formulates a theory that the Earth is round and goes on to prove it on an incontrovertible basis. When he falls asleep the whole idea vanishes; his mind is left a blank. What does it matter whether the world remains round or flat when he is asleep? So you see the futility of all such relative knowledge. One should go beyond relative knowledge and abide in the Self. Real knowledge is such experience, and not apprehension by the mind. ~ Ramana Maharshi

Thank you for the replies.

Can you say what is the difference between "Relative Experience" and "Absolute Experience"??

 

[Martin]

Sat-Chit-Ananda is Absolute Experience??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

Isn't it also Relative? The Highest Relative for Liberation??



Thank you for the replies.

Can you say what is the difference between "Relative Experience" and "Absolute Experience"??

I suggested satchitananda as the experience of the absolute.
I don't know what "Absolute experience" means.

 

[SalixIncendium]

By "Absolute Experience," I gather you're speaking of a mystical experience or an experience of oneness. If this is the case, the answer to your question is yes.

A oneness experience has nothing to do with Brahman experiencing itself.

Just because one hasn't had an "Absolute Experience" doesn't mean a person cannot have one...or several...or become stable in that experience.

 

[Viswa]

I suggested satchitananda as the experience of the absolute.
I don't know what "Absolute experience" means.

Then, this worldly relative experience is also the experience of Absolute.
Isn't it?
If not experience of Absolute, then whose?

 

[Viswa]

By "Absolute Experience," I gather you're speaking of a mystical experience or an experience of oneness. If this is the case, the answer to your question is yes.

A oneness experience has nothing to do with Brahman experiencing itself.

Just because one hasn't had an "Absolute Experience" doesn't mean a person cannot have one...or several...or become stable in that experience.

Thank you Salix. I had a blissful experience. On that occasion, tears flowed without any intention/such. I don't had any images/spirit/soul/form, but such immense. Additionally, the vibration I feel in the right heart, spread whole body. After that time, whenever I follow "I-I" thought, I feel vibration in right heart and if I remain in that, in time flows in whole body. But I don't know what "experience" of oneness is.

You did(/doing) right? Can you explain how it was(/is)?

 

[SalixIncendium]

Thank you Salix. I had a blissful experience. On that occasion, tears flowed without any intention/such. I don't had any images/spirit/soul/form, but such immense. Additionally, the vibration I feel in the right heart, spread whole body. After that time, whenever I follow "I-I" thought, I feel vibration in right heart and if I remain in that, in time flows in whole body. But I don't know what "experience" of oneness is.

You did(/doing) right? Can you explain how it was(/is)?

Sadly, language limitations fall short on my ability to describe it accurately.

Words I've used in the past to describe the experience are: intimacy, familiarity, oneness, bliss... pure detached being. It's kind of like experiencing a dream, while knowing I'm dreaming, and knowing that the dream and the character I play in that dream is illusory.

These are, of course, human conditions, and don't accurately describe the experience, but don't think there is language that actually does.

 

[The Crimson Universe]

And yes, the enlightened is free from the subject-object nexus of duality, and are in a state of nondual perception.

@Viswa As described by ajay0, there is no duality or subject-object distinction in the highest state of samadhi. One completely loses his identity or separateness and becomes one with the ocean. In that state one becomes mute. When the person again comes out of samadhi, into the dualistic reality, he fails to explain his absolute experience because there was no separate person or seeker in that absolute state experiencing that bliss. In that state there remains only the blissful Brahman. There exists no other, experiencing another thing.

Read the parable of the salt doll if you haven't. Tales and Parables Ramakrishna - A SALT DOLL WENT TO FATHOM THE OCEAN – GreatMaster.Info

As far as i know, as long we are in this plane of duality and constantly seeking spiritual goals or absoluteness, we use our mind as a tool to look inwards for our true Self. Once we reach our destination (Brahman) the false self/ego/mind dissolves into and becomes one with the Higher Self/Brahman.

 

[Viswa]

Sadly, language limitations fall short on my ability to describe it accurately.

Words I've used in the past to describe the experience are: intimacy, familiarity, oneness, bliss... pure detached being. It's kind of like experiencing a dream, while knowing I'm dreaming, and knowing that the dream and the character I play in that dream is illusory.

These are, of course, human conditions, and don't accurately describe the experience, but don't think there is language that actually does.

I can accept this. You are right.

But, I couldn't accept those as "Absolute Experience". Wherever there is object and subject experiencing, it is Relative. Purusha experiencing Prakriti. There is a space between "I" and "Experienced objects", and so it is called as "Experience".

I experienced Bliss. Bliss is Prakriti. Bliss is experienced by Me. It is relative. In the same way, You experiences something. You are different from that and experiencing that. Doesn't there Time and Movement and Space acting??

How could you say it is "Absolute"?

 

[Viswa]

@Viswa As described by ajay0, there is no duality or subject-object distinction in the highest state of samadhi. One completely loses his identity or separateness and becomes one with the ocean. In that state one becomes mute. When the person again comes out of samadhi, into the dualistic reality, he fails to explain his absolute experience because there was no separate person or seeker in that absolute state experiencing that bliss. In that state there remains only the blissful Brahman. There exists no other, experiencing another thing.

Read the parable of the salt doll if you haven't. Tales and Parables Ramakrishna - A SALT DOLL WENT TO FATHOM THE OCEAN – GreatMaster.Info

As far as i know, as long we are in this plane of duality and constantly seeking spiritual goals or absoluteness, we use our mind as a tool to look inwards for our true Self. Once we reach our destination (Brahman) the false self/ego/mind dissolves into and becomes one with the Higher Self/Brahman.

You are right George. You cannot explain. But, bliss can be explained. Samadhi cannot be explained. There is different between them.

Samadhi, is NOT an experience. It is end of experience. It cannot be said as "Experience of Oneness". There is no relative experience. That's all. It cannot be named as "Absolute experience".

It is called "Peace".. End of all. Buddha said Nothing. Nothing means, he didn't experienced Blankness, but "Nothing". No experience. Every experience is duality, and keep on changing.

End of all experience/knowledge/etc., is called "Samadhi" or "Shanthi". Only when there is Prakriti, Purusha as the experiencer, experiences Prakriti. But, when Prakriti ends, Purusha - knowledge/experience everything ends, even Bliss ends, no experience. Purusha is the experiences and Prakriti is the experienced, this is what said in Bhagavat Gita Chapter 13 verse 14 and onwards.

If that is "Absolute experience", Buddha would have said "There is Absolute experience, seek that". But, he was clear in it and said "Every experience is temporary and will keep on changing".

Then, people may wonder why scriptures speak about "Absolute experience" as such. If you see rightly, it's mother giving vegetables to Child by saying a little lie, to make a strong belief in Child to eat the vegetable. Likewise, if one seek the "Sat-Chit-Ananda" or "Blissful experience", one attains Moksha/Liberation, so no need to rebirth in physical world. And if you see rightly, it's only imparted to people who really want to put an end to material world, because they don't want to go through these sufferings anymore.

In case of Janaka/Arjuna, they really want to 'know' things, and in that case, nothing as "Seek Blissful or Sat-Chit-Ananda or Absolute experience" has been said. Only to remain free by witness and watch everything as Play of three gunas.

Can there be an experience without 'three gunas'? Absolutely not. Experience itself is bound to three gunas (and Blissful or Sat-chit-Ananda is also an experience of three gunas - the highest relative experience one can ever get), whereas Samadhi is not an experience but end. You don't know what happens, because all relative experience ends and so couldn't be explained.

It is not "Absolute Experience", but you as an "Absolute" don't have any relative experience. You don't feel any second or three gunas there, so no experience.

Even you know that, if some experienced Bliss/Ecstacy and go to Mother Kali's place/etc.., at the time dissolution, Lord Brahma will impart the knowledge, and that place also dissolves and will be created again in next creation, and everyone there will attain "Maha or Nirvikalpa Samadhi".

Other Samadhi of "Savikalpa or Sa-Anandha" etc.. is all relative and bound to time. But Nirvikalpa, is end of experiences, end of relative, and that is "Absolute". That is "Brahman". That is "Me". That is "Peace".

 

[Martin]

Then, this worldly relative experience is also the experience of Absolute.
Isn't it?
If not experience of Absolute, then whose?

Perhaps a shift from experience in the world, to experience in the absolute?

 

[ameyAtmA]

@Viswa As described by ajay0, there is no duality or subject-object distinction in the highest state of samadhi. One completely loses his identity or separateness and becomes one with the ocean. In that state one becomes mute.

It is so peaceful to go maun (mute) for days and months isn't it ? and on another level, for years with some while keeping the bare minimal communication with the vyavahAric just because you have to - not optional communication. Friends try to wake you up out of good intentions. So much energy conserved.

Pressure in the sahasra chakra. As if you are about to exit. Even then there is awareness that is not like sleep. When you wake up out of it, the sAdhak is grateful to the One who graced them.
Vi-bhakti (partition)

The important thing of interest is -- after quitting the body, some of these instruments will be gone and perhaps not needed.

When the person again comes out of samadhi, into the dualistic reality, he fails to explain his absolute experience because there was no separate person or seeker in that absolute state experiencing that bliss. In that state there remains only the blissful Brahman. There exists no other, experiencing another thing.

Too lazy to describe. No motivation to describe. Let others see for themselves.

As far as i know, as long we are in this plane of duality and constantly seeking spiritual goals or absoluteness, we use our mind as a tool to look inwards for our true Self. Once we reach our destination (Brahman) the false self/ego/mind dissolves into and becomes one with the Higher Self/Brahman.

Yes, that is true. The part about looking inwards for our true Self -- it can be voluntary like you said, but what if you never tried doing that OR one may look at it as involuntary - given. handed. Grace.
This is why at least I would not throw what is "seen" out of the window even after having the knowlege and understanding of being Brahman (again via experience). Whether seeing forms of ParaBrahman or being forms of ParaBrahman, to have a sustained understanding of that, and whatever else. I would not toss it out as "subject-object mAyA" or "forms" This is IT. It is prasAd. Accept it and when not in samAdhi -- which is 90% of the time (unless you are like Swami Samartha in samadhi for 300 years) -- learn who you are from it, that is all. Mind is just the instrument.

After all, don't at least some of us have to be prepared for moments of "not currently in samAdhi" in the afterlife? Then fortunately we don't have to chop wood. Make haar instead? If the spiritual eyes are by chance open and not closed, at least I am not going to say "I am not going to look because it is subject-object and not absolute"

Walk With Mukunda
He Mukunda, no matter what you tell or show, that I am this and that, the whole and not the part,
I will stay at Your Lotus Feet (which happen to be everywhere - the Omnipresent VishNu that you are, the pure Shiva that You are)
[It is a different story that I automatically inherit Your omnipresence as a result, that not being the goal]
So irrespective of being in or out of samAdhi,
It all comes back, when out of samAdhi, like when you wake up from sleep in this life
Because at that time I will be right there - At Your Lotus Feet
Instead of some random "place" [read as: random consciousness]
- ameyAtmA

*Mukunda is the whole, inclusive of Shiva, Devi and others

 

[Viswa]

Pressure in the sahasra chakra. As if you are about to exit. Even then there is awareness that is not like sleep. When you wake up out of it, the sAdhak is grateful to the One who graced them.
Vi-bhakti (partition)

The important thing of interest is -- after quitting the body, some of these instruments will be gone and perhaps not needed.


Nice. Too lazy to describe. No motivation to describe. Let others see for themselves.


Yes, that is true. The part about looking inwards for our true Self -- it can be voluntary like you said, but what if you never tried doing that OR one may look at it as involuntary - given. handed. Grace.
This is why at least I would not throw what is "seen" out of the window even after having the knowlege and understanding of being Brahman (again via experience). Whether seeing forms of ParaBrahman or being forms of ParaBrahman, to have a sustained understanding of that, and whatever else. I would not toss it out as "subject-object mAyA" or "forms" This is IT. It is prasAd. Accept it and when not in samAdhi -- which is 90% of the time (unless you are like Swami Samartha in samadhi for 300 years) -- learn who you are from it, that is all. Mind is just the instrument.

After all, don't at least some of us have to be prepared for moments of "not currently in samAdhi" in the afterlife? Then fortunately we don't have to chop wood. Make haar instead? If the spiritual eyes are by chance open and not closed, at least I am not going to say "I am not going to look because it is subject-object and not absolute"

Walk With Mukunda
He Mukunda, no matter what you tell or show, that I am this and that, the whole and not the part,
I will stay at Your Lotus Feet (which happen to be everywhere - the Omnipresent VishNu that you are, the pure Shiva that You are)
[It is a different story that I automatically inherit Your omnipresence as a result, that not being the goal]
So irrespective of being in or out of samAdhi,
It all comes back, when out of samAdhi, like when you wake up from sleep in this life
Because at that time I will be right there - At Your Lotus Feet
Instead of some random "place" [read as: random consciousness]
- ameyAtmA

*Mukunda is the whole, inclusive of Shiva, Devi and others

Hey there Ameyatma.

Do you speak about "under lotus feet of Mukundha" in four hand form or Vishwaroopa form??

In the form of "Sanguchakradari" or in the form of your profile pic? Willing to see the 'death' form and all form including fierce/angry in Vishwaroopa and be in his lotus feet in that form, or fear like Arjuna and ask him to come back to four hand form and remain seeing him only in that blissful form but not all forms including death?

I'm not neglecting those experiences as "not absolute" and move away as I said it is the highest experience one can ever get in this life and after and ever. But, what about Earth? Earth is also his form right? Why to praise only 'that' form? This world is also his form, and both can be equally praised. Right?? Not one above and others below, and see every form equally - right? Not only those, but every thing is Prasad, including this world - as everything is his forms - right?

 

[Vinayaka]

Is there any such thing as "Absolute Experience"?

In my view, Experiences can be only Relative/apparent, but never Absolute. Whatever one can experience, is always bound to Duality/Subject-Object/Maya/Shakthi.

'Brahman/You/I/That/Shiva' is reality. "Brahman/I" can experience/perceive itself, only relatively but never Absolutely (it's whole potential - timeless). It Can experience itself only with Maya/Shakthi/three gunas, but never without. All experiences are bound to time, and there is no such thing as "Timeless - spaceless" experience. Even seeing God, there is a form/space between "me" and "What" is experienced, and clock runs in such experience, slow or fast anyway. If no Maya/Shakthi/energy/Relativity/three gunas/Duality, then no experience, and no way possible to know/experience/perceive itself.

What do you think?

I agree with it, not because I know it, but because it's what sages say about the Self.
"Beyond time, beyond form, beyond space" so I assume it's also beyond Experience. I trust the wisdom of the sages, but that's all I can say about it, cause I ain't no sage.

 

[Viswa]

Do Peeps/members here around, feel/felt that my posts/presence here an Impediment on their life/path?

Please let me know.

 

[Vinayaka]

Do Peeps/members here around, feel/felt that my posts/presence here an Impediment on their life/path?

Please let me know.

No. It's an internet from, and has little significance in real life.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Do Peeps/members here around, feel/felt that my posts/presence here an Impediment on their life/path?

Please let me know.

They have little to no impact on me.

I can't speak for the other members or these guys...

 

[Viswa]

Thanks for everyone's sharing of their view to my question of "Whether my presence/posts an impediment in one's life?".

It seems to me that it's true that an impediment to others.