I thought some of you might find this dialogue useful. I've kept the
names anonymous to protect the innocent (an not-so-innocent *lol*). Enjoy!|
[ Sadhak 1] The Bija, for me, is a seed which can potentially generate a large variation of immanence. Just like there could be a million different kinds of mango seeds, but they all create different-looking mango trees.
[ Sadhak 2] Yes, there are a lot of Beejas. But if you take a mango and say it's a turmeric, that will not make it turmeric. Adding mango where turmeric is needed will not make the curry palatable. No offense, okay?
[ Sadhak 1 ] What is the difference between Sauh and Svaha
[ Sadhak 2] SauH is a BIja mantra
[ Sadhak 1 ] Svaha is feminine ending?
[ Sadhak 2 ] Svaahaa is invocation of Agni's wife Swaahaa to take the offering to the gods. It is NOT a BIJa mantra
[ Sadhak 1 ] I am not a Sanskritologist, but I have practiced some meditation techniques that I don't find in the mainstream, using bijas – or what I call seed sounds.
[ Sadhak 2 ] Okay. Well, you see, I do not know anything of meditation and whatnot, so I cannot really argue on that.
[ Sadhak 1 ] Well, for instance, AUM can be chanted in many ways: AAAUUUMMMM; or AUUUUUUUUUUMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM; or AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
[ Sadhak 2 ] What's this? Pranava?
[ Sadhak 1 ] Pranava, yes. So ultimately, sound is another tanmatra; a product of ahamkara. It's what the sound from the realm below, of ahamkara, does to the realm above, of ahamkara -- which is the effect of the mantra.
[ Sadhak 2 ] I see. But the problem is, there is only one way sound can exist, as delineated by Patanjali in his Yoga Sutra. It's "sa shabdo Pranava;" not "sa shabdaaH pranava." That means there is only one sound called pranava. The others, therefore, are not pranava; but something else. But then, I am no expert.
[ Sadhak 1 ] Well, I follow the Shiv sutras, not Patanjali. And according to the Shiv sutras., the methods of Patanjali are the most inferior, using all the things below the realm of ahamkara, the false "I"-maker.
[ Sadhak 2 ] As I told you, I am not that learned or anything. But have you actually read the Shiv sutras?
[ Sadhak 1 ] Vyakaranam, shiksha, etc. I like to learn, but I like to meditate and understand things for myself.
[ Sadhak 2 ] These are things for which you need a teacher. It will be easier and faster. But if you are determined to teach yourself, I would suggest you study Sanskrit first and then read texts in original, at the very least.
[ Sadhak 1 ] Why should i study Sanskrit? It's only a vaikhari form – only emanation. I remember long ago meeting a Jewish fellow who felt the sounds of the Hebrew language also denote ultimate reality.
[ Sadhak 2 ] Well then, you will be attempting to reinvent the wheel without the necessary expertise.
[ Sadhak 1 ] True knowledge arises from silence, from the core.
[ Sadhak 2 ]Yes. Provided there is a base.
[ Sadhak 1 ] The base is the core itself. Tvameva sarvam mama deva deva.
[ Sadhak 2 ] Then why not go to the Golden Gate Bridge and jump off it, reciting that. Will the "deva deva" immediately protect you, if you haven't yet realized it? Merely mouthing clichés will not give results.
[ Sadhak 1 ] But see, my mind does not create such false things. So I know that I am the deva, protecting myself. I have realized him. I have to know that he is me – or she is me. This is the path. All notions have to be dissolved: I am learned, I am stupid, I am wise, I am Indian, etc.
[ Sadhak 2 ] Yes, but until you KNOW you are One – and not just know, but experience, you are still a traveler. Until then you should use all available tools. But use them properly.
[ Back to The Forum Main Index ]