4

This is a third question in a series of questions essentially about being able to see the Atman.

In the previous question I basically asked if being able to see (experience) the divinity of the Atman is something that is considered natural for most people, or if it is considered something that most people are initially blind to; and if they are blind to it, how hard is it considered to get them to see that divinity in their inner world?

According to @SwamiVishwananda:

All people are initially blind to it, it is not natural. Yoga is going against what is natural. What is natural is to remain stuck in samsara. How hard it is depends upon your own efforts in that direction.

First, you are welcome to give a different opinion or expand on Swami Vishwananda's point of view.

Second, I would like to ask the following (more detailed version of the previous questions):

Suppose a state of being, where one is able to see, naturally and without effort, a divine nature in his consciousness, a watching without a watcher which seems unchanging and ever present, and of a divine and utterly mysterious nature; and suppose that this ability (to see it) seems to be stable over months and years, and that this seeing is not meant in the sense of a deduction of the intellect or a religious emotion or a belief in something transcendent, but rather that this phenomenon is experienced directly and is the most apparent and undeniable phenomenon in his consciousness.

Also suppose, that such a person can use the intellect to reason that this evident mysterious nature of his consciousness may be a general quality of reality and possibly even the nature of all reality, nevertheless in respect to the external (material) world around him, that knowledge is only intellectual or religious.

That is, his knowledge is a direct experience in respect to his internal world (his consciousness) but intellectual in respect to the external world, the world of "material" phenomena, trees, planets, etc...

Finally, suppose that this individual is still susceptible to anger, selfishness, and attachment and misery.

  • Is that state consistent with Hinduism?
  • How is that state called or referred to in Hinduism?

Note, that I mean state in the sense of a stage of spiritual evolution rather then a state of meditation.

|improve this question
  • 1
    A state where a person clearly see divine in everybody cannot be practically be achieved without overcoming anger, greed etc. But, again, it is quite possible that one attain various siddhis, or even reach some meditation states, but when one returns, one is again afflicted with same anger etc. The real measurement of spiritual progress in in the ability of a person to overcome these anger etc. – Nithin Sridhar Oct 5 '15 at 16:44
  • It is possible that you misunderstood me; I am referring to a state where one sees the divine in his "own" inner world (which also includes the appearances and sensations caused by the external world and other people); such a person is likely to reason or believe this divinity is not limited to oneself but is a general quality of reality, but strictly speaking I am not talking of a state where one is presumably able to magically see or directly know what is in other people. also, I am talking of a "stable" state which does not require meditation. – nir Oct 5 '15 at 18:33
  • 1
    Good question! If have understood correctly, This state is consistent with Hinduism. It is called as 'Intellectual realization'. In other words, one knows with the intellect that everything and everyone is God. However one has not yet started to put this into practice in one's surroundings. In other words, the knowledge is a theoretical one. To convert into practical knowledge, is what people call as Sadhana. There are different ways, of which Yoga is one. All the best. – Sai Oct 5 '15 at 18:38
  • @sai, it is intellectual in respect to the external world - but it is direct knowledge or experience in respect to the internal world and all appearances. is that how you understood me? – nir Oct 5 '15 at 18:40
  • 1
    @nir From your description it seems my initial understanding of your question was wrong. Sorry. So you are saying that although the person in question is seeing Brahman in all people within himself, is still not able to love them unonditionally? – Sai Oct 6 '15 at 14:01

You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .