https://groups.yahoo.

com/neo/groups/sadhaka/conversations/messages/4515

Natural means to Enlightenment

The Self is Existence, Consciousness, free from sense of I-ness (egoism). If we understand this
point, then this very moment we are liberated. In this there is no delay. The delay is in that which
is not there at present and for which one has to create "nirmaan" something. For that which is
here right now, what production or creation "nirmaan" is required? Rather only our sight needs to
go towards it, we have to accept it.
Just like -
Sankar sahaj saroopu samhaaraa
laagi samaadhi akhand apaaraa
(Manasa, Balkand 58/4)
There are two words - "I am". In this -
• "I" is a part of Prakruti (Nature ) and "Am" is a part of Paramatma (God, Supreme Being,
Supreme Consciousness). 
• "I" is inert whereas "Am" is sentient.
• "I" is dependent whereas "Am" is the support.
• "I" is that which is illuminated, whereas "Am" is the illuminator.
• "I" is ever- changing, whereas, "Am" is changeless.
• "I" is temporary and "Am" is permanent.
• "I" undergoes changes, whereas "Am" is changeless.
When "I" and "Am" are blended together, then it becomes a knot between sentient and insentient
"Chijjadgranthi" (jada-chetan ki granthi). This is bondage. This itself is ignorance. To experience,
"I" and "Am" as separate is liberation, it is enlightenment. Here it is essential to have the
knowledge that it is only when “I” is blended. that it is called "Am". If "I" was not blended, then it
would not be "Am", rather only "IS" would remain. That "IS" is our true Self (swaroop).
A person said to his father that "I am your son," thereafter the same person in front of his son,
says - "I am your father". In front of his grand-father, he says "I am your grandson" In front of his
grandson, he says "I am your grand-father", to his sister, he says "I am your brother", to his wife,
he says "I am your husband" etc. The point is that the "Am" in all of these is one only. The "I"
keeps changing depending on who he is in front of. If you ask him, "Who are you?", than he
himself does not know! If he searches on the "I", then he will not find that "I" rather only the
existence (IS-ness) is found. Because as such that existence is of "IS" (IS-ness), not of "I".
In terms of the son’s needs, he is the father, and in terms of the father’s needs, he is the son. In
this manner, son, father, grand-son, grand-father, wife, husband etc. are all names of relations.
That is, these are not the names of the "Self". The "Self" is impartial and free of all relations. That
"IS" is the knower of "I". The "I" is not the knower, and that which is the knower, it is not "I". The
"I" is what comes into the perception of the knower and "IS" is the knower. "I" is the inhabitant of
a particular place. The "IS" is at all places. Whether relation is accepted with "I" or not, the "I" is
non-existent. The Existence is of only "IS". The changes are in the "I" not in the "IS". The "Am" is
also a part of "IS". It is due to having affinity with "I-ness" that the ‘self’ became a ‘ansh’ (part). If
it did not catch hold of "I-ness" then it would not be "Am", rather it is due to having a sense of "I-

Page 1 of 3
ness" and "Mine-ness" (my son etc.) that there is proprietary interest / attachment. It is only when
one is free of "I-ness" (ahamtaa) and "Mine-ness" (mamta) that one is liberated.
"Nirmamoha Nirahankaarah sa shaantimadigacchyati" 
(Gita 2/71)
This is "Brahmi Sthithi" (a state of Self/God realized soul). On attaining this state (Brahmi Sthithi),
in other words, on experiencing being in "IS," there is no owner of this body, that is, there is no
one remaining to say "I" and "Mine" to this body.
In men, birds, animals, bricks, stones and various things there may be differences but there is no
difference in "IS". Similarly, the wombs from which the birth takes place keep changing, but the
‘Self’ is unchanging. That consciousness (IS-ness) that is existent is the same in the various
bodies, in the various states. Child, youth, old age these are three different stages, but the
existence is the same. Bachelor, married and widower these are different states, but in all three
of these, the IS-ness is the same. The waking, dream and deep sleep, unconscious, and deep
meditative are different states. These five states are separate, but in all five states, the IS-ness is
the same. The states keep changing, but the knower of the states does not change. Similarly
there are differences in one's natural tendencies and behavior such as - single-pointed, foolish,
inactive, agitated etc., but there is no difference in the knower of these tendencies and behavior.
If the knower was to also undergo changes, then who will keep track of these changes? There is
one extra-ordinary point, that there is knowledge of all the changes, but no one has the
knowledge of the changes to the Self. One experiences the non-existence of all other, but no one
has experienced the non-existence of the ‘swayam’ (Self). The point is that we are already
naturally established in "IS-ness" (existence), we do not have to try to be in that state. The
mistake that is made is that we see ourselves "in this world" - and in that non-existent world, we
place the IS-ness, and by doing so, the existence of the "Not" (non-existent i.e. world) is seen
and our sight does not go towards the IS (existent). As such, "the world is within IS" thus one
must experience the "NOT" in "IS." By experiencing the "NOT" in "IS" the NOT does not remain,
and the IS will remain. God says -
"Nasato Vidhyate Bhaavo, Naabhaavo Vidhyate satah."
(Gita 2/16)
The unreal has no existence, and the real never ceases to be.
The unreal has no existence, and the real never ceases to be. This means that the unreal (thing,
individual, activity) does not exist, and there is never the absence (non-existence) of the real. In
other words, there is always the absence (non-existence) of the unreal. The real is ever existent.
"Seeing our defined existence in one country, time, thing, individual, state, situation,
circumstance etc., is due to "I-ness" (individuality, belonging to a particular region). As long as "I-
ness" is seen, till then man sees himself in one country, one time zone, etc. When I-ness is
wiped out, defined country, one time zone etc. does not remain, rather only the one existent
without any boundaries remains. 
As such there is no I-ness, rather it is only believed to be so. The existence of I-ness is not
similar to the worldly objects that appear to be existent. Worldly objects are born and later
destroyed, but I-ness is not born and destroyed. Therefore on attaining enlightenment, the bodily
objects remain, but I-ness is wiped out. 
Therefore on attainment of enlightenment the knower does not remain, only knowledge remains.
Thus far no one has become a Knower of Truth, there is no Knower of Truth, there cannot be a
knower of Truth and it is impossible to be the Knower of Truth. I-ness is what makes one the
knower of Truth. There is no "Knower of Truth," rather there is only knowledge, only Existence.

Page 2 of 3
There is no knowledgeable person. There is no devout person. There is no owner. The
knowledge itself is the self illumination. In other words, it is the Self is known by the Self. As
such, one does not become knowledgeable, only the ignorance is removed. It is removal of
ignorance that is called attaining enlightenment.
One is "prakaashya" (the thing which is brought to light i.e. the world) and one is the ‘prakaashak’
(Illuminator, Paramatma, God,), in other words, one is "this" and one is it's "support," it’s
illuminator, it existence (reality). ‘I-ness’ is neither in the ‘prakaashya’, that which is illumed nor in
the Illuminator (Supreme Reality, Prakashak), it is only believed to be so. He who has desire for
the world (this) and desire for Paramatma (Existence, Reality), it is called egoism (Aham, I-ness)
and that is "Jeev" (embodied soul). The point is that the relationship of the inert causes desire for
the world i.e. desire for sense enjoyments; whereas relationship with consciousness "chetan"
causes desire for Paramatma i.e enquiry into the Truth "jigyaasa". In egoism (I-ness) - due to the
knot between insentient and sentient (jada-chetan-granthi), there is predominance of insentient,
therefore the desire for the world. And due to the predominance of the sentient, there is desire for
Paramatma.1 But when the assumed I-ness (egoism) is destroyed, the desire for sense
enjoyments is wiped out and enquiry into the Truth is fulfilled. In other words, only ‘tattva’
(Divinity) remains. As such, desire for Paramatma is also due to desire for the world. If there is
no desire for the world, then enlightenment is natural and innate. continued.....
In a higher state of spiritual discipline "I want to attain enlightenment, I want to attain liberation,"
these desires too are obstacles. As long as, the the existence of the unreal is firmly rooted in the
inner-senses (antahkaran), till than, "enquiry" is helpful, but when the existence of the unreal is
loosened, enquiry also becomes an obstacle to knowledge of Truth. Just as thirst proves
distance (out of reach) from water, similarly, enquiry proves distance from the Truth (God,
Divinity, Essence, Element), when as such the Divinity is not far, rather it is ever-attained. 
The second point is on desiring ‘tattva gyaan’ (enlightenment), the individual (I-ness) remains
firm, which is an obstacle in attaining Divinity. As such, enlightenment, liberation is spontaneous
and self-evident. On desiring the enlightenment, we give existence to ignorance (agyaan), we
accept ignorance in us, when in reality there is no existence of ignorance at all. Therefore, on
attaining ‘tattva gyaan’ enlightenment, no delusion (moha) remains -
"yajhgyaatvaa na purnarmoham" (Gita 4/35)
As such there is no delusion. Only that is destroyed which was not-existing, and only that is
attained which is already existing. 
The natural and innate "IS" experienced by an aspirant, is the name of liberation or
enlightenment. In the end, when all is severed, only "IS" remains. That "IS" is beyond both the
anticipated "NOT" and "IS". In other words, in its existence, both "NOT" and "IS" are not present,
That existence is knowledge of Self, Consciousness. That existence is eternally awake. In
"shushupti" state all actions become merged, but existence does not get merged. That existence
is eternally awake. That existence never becomes old, rather it remains new at all times; as there
is no time involved in that. Having knowledge of that existence, is itself ‘enlightenment’
(Tattvagyaan) and to mix anything with this existence is "Ignorance" (agyaan).
Narayan ! Narayan !! Narayan !!!

Page 3 of 3