Is there even a 'beyond' that is beyond 'That'?
On one level Tantra is related to 'activation of Kundalini etc'. This type of practice is usually reserved for the stricter adherents of other Yogic practices (also with due reference to both Patanjali and Swami Svatmarama here), but these things are often accredited to the schools of Kriya and Raja Yoga (Laya Yoga) than with Tantra. Sure, Tantra incorporates this and it is the essence, but not the nectar. There's a lot of 'misinformation' about this.
For me, the 'path' and the 'state' are one, but I guess that's just part of some old Taoist being within me that just refuses to go away. lol
Is the realisation in the 'being' or in the 'becoming' ISA?
We have had this whole discussion before though, only you are probably not aware of it, while I am cursed with an eidetic memory.
Namaste
My apologies for not being aware of the discussion. I read only a few posts on this thread and I am not much active online specially on RF.
See, you cannot negate your own self.
If you see rose and say, - This is a rose flower.
This means that
1. You are not rose
2. Rose is different from you
3. You are knower of rose flower
Until there is an observer and the objection of observation and the process of observation, there is duality.
When after negating or separating self from non-self, only you remain.
Let me give an e.g.
Imagine a tree, mango tree. I hope you like mangoes
As soon as I said - Mango Tree'
A shape and form appears in front of you. Shape of tree and it has a name mango tree.
Now, remove the name - Mango tree
What remains is just a shape (with no name).
Now remove the shape. What remains is nothing. Now both mango tree and it's shape are gone. So there is blank. In this process, you negated tree and it's name i.e. shape, form and the name associated with it. But you did not negate yourself.
in the same way, you cannot negate yourself.
When you merge into atman or Brahman, then you do separately experience it. This is difficult to explain. Sat-Chit-Ananda are not to be separately experienced.
Truth, consciousness and bliss are one and the same.
Truth is eternal,
consciousness is you, you are eternal and hence truth
when there is no duality, there is no sorrow, no fear, no death, hence you are bliss.
So Truth, consciousness and bliss are not different and are not to be experienced separately.
Since everything 'Else' is negated or dis-associated from 'I', nothing more remains, as we have seen in e.g. that after removing tree and it's shape nothing 'else' (except you), remain.
You are observer, but observer is a relative term and not absolute. Observer is so called because he/she is observing 'something'. When there is nothing left to observe, then what remains - 'I'. Hence there is nothing beyond it.
I will give you explanation from another standpoint. Only Brahman is indescribable. So there must be nothing beyond it. Everything 'else' has been described. To describe something, one must have knowledge of it. Hence there must be someone who has seen and knows the object to be described'. In this sense, duality exists. Only when the 'I', gets separated and merged into Brahman, only Brahman remains.
Is the realisation in the 'being' or in the 'becoming' ISA?
There are 2 ways.
1. Neti-Neti = naa iti, naa iti, meaning - not this, not this. Realization is in being.
2. Merging or chanting OM. In this one separates oneself from what is non-self by focusing on OM. Later the source of OM is traced and mind merges into the source. OM silences itself. This is called as 'becoming'.
Technically, Being is more correct. But it is easy to understand that we transcend and merge into Brahman. We are practically in duality.
By becoming witness, and chanting OM, one can separate non-self from self. This is like separating milk from mixture of milk and water. Do we realize or experience, in reality, that 'I' is different from body'? the one who separates milk from impossible looking mixture of milk+water is called as Hansa (Swan). Hence Hansa is an important symbol in advaita. It is said that Hansa has ability to separate milk form mixture of milk+water. the one who has separated non-self from self and later on merged into brahman, is called as raja-hansa. Raj means king.
We may look like we have become Brahman, but actually, in the whole process, we never experience transformation of 'I' into something. It always remains awareness. Only thing is that, initially, there is awareness of 'something', later on, this 'something' cease to exist, but yet awareness exists by itself. Awareness may seem a relative term, but it can exist independently. Some use word 'consciousness'. I do not know which is better one. I use them interchangeably. So consciousness can exist even if it is not seeing or experiencing anything. It is just pure consciousness and nothing else. and that is you. At no time (except you fall asleep
), there is no break or transformation of consciousness throughout the meditation. Hence it is said that Atman is already achieved. you are Atman and Atman is Brahman, which is beyond attributes, pure, immutable, changeless, eternal reality. This process of achieving is called as 'prAptasya prApti'. PrApta means 'to achieve'. PrAptasya prApti means 'to achieve that is already achieved'.
Are you getting my point? No new thing is formed, there is no transformation. There is an end to the search, as nothing is beyond it. there is non-duality (advaita), and hence there is nothing 'else' present to experience anything 'separately'.
So, it is said that the knower of Brhaman is Brahman itself
The knower of Brahman becomes Brahman itself.
Again here, becoming is for explanatory purpose.
EDIT: Also note that - 'You cannot negate your own Self'
Aum
