Self-Realization

[The Crimson Universe]

Experts on Advaita believe that the experience or realization of the oneness in samadhi, cannot be described later on by the sadhaka after he comes out of samadhi.

To the experts, the reason for this is that, the mind ceases to function in samadhi. It becomes mute. It becomes devoid of all thoughts.

They say, the distinction of the subject and object vanishes during this experience.
Their point is, if there remains no seeker/subject in samadhi, then who will describe the experience of oneness?

To explain this, we are often given the salt doll analogy of Ramakrishna-
Tales and Parables Ramakrishna - A SALT DOLL WENT TO FATHOM THE OCEAN – GreatMaster.Info

My question is, if the mind really becomes mute and the subject(yogi) dissolves with the so-called object(brahman) and therefore fails to register his divine samadhi experience of oneness, then why do they use the term 'Realization'?

I mean, if the sadhaka can actually 'REALIZE' during samadhi, then he SHOULD be able to describe his wonderful experience later on as well. And yet we don't find anyone describing it.

 

[Sirona]

I'm no expert but I'd say if you try to describe anything you pull it down into the sphere of dualism whereas samadhi is the realization of Oneness and therefore is beyond description. Example: if you try to describe anything in RF, somebody will always feel offended regardless of how skillfully and inclusively you put i in words.

 

[rocala]

I suspect that this in part is a problem of language. "Realize" is about the best that we can offer and it is woefully inadequate.
Try explaining colors to a person who has always been blind and you will have some understanding of the dilemma.

 

[Martin]

Experts on Advaita believe that the experience or realization of the oneness in samadhi, cannot be described later on by the sadhaka after he comes out of samadhi.

To the experts, the reason for this is that, the mind ceases to function in samadhi. It becomes mute. It becomes devoid of all thoughts.

They say, the distinction of the subject and object vanishes during this experience.
Their point is, if there remains no seeker/subject in samadhi, then who will describe the experience of oneness?

To explain this, we are often given the salt doll analogy of Ramakrishna-
Tales and Parables Ramakrishna - A SALT DOLL WENT TO FATHOM THE OCEAN – GreatMaster.Info

My question is, if the mind really becomes mute and the subject(yogi) dissolves with the so-called object(brahman) and therefore fails to register his divine samadhi experience of oneness, then why do they use the term 'Realization'?

I mean, if the sadhaka can actually 'REALIZE' during samadhi, then he SHOULD be able to describe his wonderful experience later on as well. And yet we don't find anyone describing it.

Samadhi is a temporary meditative state of absorption, which can be roughly described in retrospect. When the mind is fully absorbed into the object of meditation, the sense of "me" subsides. Then it's as if the object disappears.

I wouldn't describe samadhi as a "realisation", it's more like a preparatory exercise. An example of a realisation would be the direct experience of "Aham Brahmasmi", which IMO goes well beyond the intellectual posturing you see in these discussions.

As I understand it, the mind only ceases to function in the deep-sleep state. The mere absence of thoughts isn't a big deal, IMO, it's just the first stage of developing a tranquil mind.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Experts on Advaita believe that the experience or realization of the oneness in samadhi, cannot be described later on by the sadhaka after he comes out of samadhi.

To the experts, the reason for this is that, the mind ceases to function in samadhi. It becomes mute. It becomes devoid of all thoughts.

They say, the distinction of the subject and object vanishes during this experience.
Their point is, if there remains no seeker/subject in samadhi, then who will describe the experience of oneness?

To explain this, we are often given the salt doll analogy of Ramakrishna-
Tales and Parables Ramakrishna - A SALT DOLL WENT TO FATHOM THE OCEAN – GreatMaster.Info

My question is, if the mind really becomes mute and the subject(yogi) dissolves with the so-called object(brahman) and therefore fails to register his divine samadhi experience of oneness, then why do they use the term 'Realization'?

I mean, if the sadhaka can actually 'REALIZE' during samadhi, then he SHOULD be able to describe his wonderful experience later on as well. And yet we don't find anyone describing it.

It's not that the mind doesn't register the experience. It's that it's beyond the mind's ability to relate to another accurately due to limitations of language and limitations of the mind. Let's expand on the salt doll analogy.

There is a boat on the ocean. We will call this pragmatic reality. In that boat is a burlap sack. Let's call that the body/mind complex. In that sack is a salt doll, we can call this the witness/awareness, and a salt depth measuring tools. The tools are just tools. The sack is tied to the boat with a tether. We can call that tether Maya. The sack with the doll and tools is lowered into the ocean to measure its depth. It spends a while in the ocean, but is then pulled back into the boat, only to find that there is no longer a form of a doll and tools in the ocean, but what appears to be a wet and empty sack tied to the tether.

There is no depth reported, no witness/awareness that is separate from the ocean. The body/mind is still there in pragmatic reality. There is even some salt residue on the dried bag. The forms of the doll and tools were merely an appearance and were always just the ocean that appeared on the boat with a physical form.

 

[The Crimson Universe]

I wouldn't describe samadhi as a "realisation", it's more like a preparatory exercise. An example of a realisation would be the direct experience of "Aham Brahmasmi", which IMO goes well beyond the intellectual posturing you see in these discussions.

So, is there a sanskrit term for this bigger, direct experience that you speak of, that comes after the preparatory samadhi exercise?

 

[The Crimson Universe]

It's not that the mind doesn't register the experience. It's that it's beyond the mind's ability to relate to another accurately due to limitations of language and limitations of the mind.

This makes sense.

 

[The Crimson Universe]

I'm no expert but I'd say if you try to describe anything you pull it down into the sphere of dualism whereas samadhi is the realization of Oneness and therefore is beyond description.

Agree. There's the risk of contamination or multiple interpretation once we try to describe the indescribable in the plane of duality.
But like @SalixIncendium do you also agree that the mind keeps functioning in samadhi (or during the direct experience that comes after samadhi as @Martin says) and registers the experience and yet fails to put it in words?

 

[stvdv]

New Experts on Advaita believe that the experience or realization of the oneness in samadhi, cannot be described later on by the sadhaka after he comes out of samadhi.

My Master has said, that if you say that you come out of Samadhi, it was not Samadhi.

That answers your question why they can't describe...

 

[George-ananda]

I think the answer is that the ultimate state is the only real (hence called Realization). The describing mind is part of Maya (illusion).

At this stage I am content with the description of Realization as the experience of infinite sat-cit-ananda (being-awareness-bliss) beyond the mind.

 

[Sirona]

Agree. There's the risk of contamination or multiple interpretation once we try to describe the indescribable in the plane of duality.
But like @SalixIncendium do you also agree that the mind keeps functioning in samadhi (or during the direct experience that comes after samadhi as @Martin says) and registers the experience and yet fails to put it in words?

As said before, I'm no expert, but I think this is experienced by neti, neti (not this, not that). I think this is somewhat analogous to some Abrahamics refusing or failing to "describe God completely." I think there may be experiences which are so overwhelming that they may leave one without words. On the other hand, insights may also be gained while one is in silence.

 

[Martin]

So, is there a sanskrit term for this bigger, direct experience that you speak of, that comes after the preparatory samadhi exercise?

Jnana leading to moksha.

 

[Martin]

I think the answer is that the ultimate state is the only real (hence called Realization). The describing mind is part of Maya (illusion).

At this stage I am content with the description of Realization as the experience of infinite sat-cit-ananda (being-awareness-bliss) beyond the mind.

How is satcitananda experienced, if not by the mind?

 

[Martin]

My Master has said, that if you say that you come out of Samadhi, it was not Samadhi.

That answers your question why they can't describe...

I don't understand what he means by this. Could you explain?

 

[George-ananda]

How is satcitananda experienced, if not by (in?) the mind?

It's the existence itself of non-differentiated Brahman. Ultimately that is the gist of this thread; that Brahman is something we can't get our minds behind.

 

[stvdv]

I don't understand what he means by this. Could you explain?

IF you want to know what My Master means by this, you have to ask Him. I can't speak for Him. He gives facts, and He lets us figure out ourselves what it means, using: common sense, dicrimination and meditation. Especially to discover those Big Truths.

In this age of instant gratification most people don't have the patience, peace (purity of mind) and perseverance to contemplate on it. But those 3 are key in getting to the Truth ourselves.

That's also why Realized Souls don't serve us the Truth on a Gold Plate, we all have to figure it out ourselves. "No pain no gain" I think they say in English

 

[The Crimson Universe]

My Master has said, that if you say that you come out of Samadhi, it was not Samadhi.

That answers your question why they can't describe.

I don't understand what he means by this. Could you explain?

I think what stvdv meant was, if your mind is 'aware' of entering and coming out of samadhi, then it couldn't be samadhi because samadhi to many people is the stage when the mind dissolves into oneness and stops registering or thinking.
But to some, the mind does register in that higher stage.

 

[stvdv]

I think what stvdv meant was, if your mind is 'aware' of entering and coming out of samadhi, then it couldn't be samadhi because samadhi to many people is the stage when the mind dissolves into oneness and stops registering or thinking.

Indeed, this is what I meant

But to some, the mind does register in that higher stage.

Are those the people who experience Samadhi or are those the people who rely on their bookish knowledge?

 

[The Crimson Universe]

At this stage I am content with the description of Realization as the experience of infinite sat-cit-ananda (being-awareness-bliss) beyond the mind.

How do you think this 'experience' or 'realization' happens beyond the mind? Who is it that experiences if not the mind? Can the witness brahman experience itself?

 

[The Crimson Universe]

Are those the people who experience Samadhi or are those the people who rely on their bookish knowledge?

So if the mind actually doesn't register anything in samadhi, then why is it called realization? There needs to be someone to 'realize' something, don't you think?