Pleasure, Happiness, Bliss

[sangom]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

Dear Sangom ji,

The Sun can be veiled by a cloud and we do not feel the sunlight.

So the cloud of experiences in the world can veil our true innate nature of happiness and we feel the pangs of sorrow
Sorrow is not superimposed..and neither is sorrow the cloud.

I think I am starting to sound confusing..that's a good sign to be a Mataji soon.
The best Gurujis are those who keep their Bhaktas in a confused state of mind!LOL

Mataji !

The Mataji-ness has occurred, imho, because you try to equate the perception of Sun by someone else with sorrow which is felt by oneself. In your analogy, the cloud should be such that the Sun itself should feel that it is not shining! Any such cloud available?

 

[renuka]

Mataji !

The Mataji-ness has occurred, imho, because you try to equate the perception of Sun by someone else with sorrow which is felt by oneself. In your analogy, the cloud should be such that the Sun itself should feel that it is not shining! Any such cloud available?

Dear Sir,

Clouds come and go...It is the Sun that remains ever the same..that's why we need the Grace of God to blow away the Asuric clouds of Karma so that the Sun in us can be revealed and our true nature of JnaanaBhaskara will shine hence forth..otherwise why do you think Thyagaraja sang this:

raNadhIra sarva sAra
sukumAra budha vihAra
danuja nIra dhara samIraNa
karuNA rasa paripUrNa
jAra cOra pAhi mAm


Dauntless in battle! O essence of everything!
Tender one! Lord who abides in the hearts of the wise!
O wind which drives away the asura-clouds!
One brimming with the juice of Mercy!
O paramour ! O thief (of butter)! Protect me.

P.S. Technically I have not answered your question..but that's what Matajis/Gurujis do..they do not answer your questions and confuse the Bhakta further!LOL

 

[zebra16]

My opinion of bliss, happiness and pleasure with a twist in the tail. If I were the music teacher that you are :

1. It is a pleasure to receive my students and teach them.

It will be a pleasure to receive the monthly or annual fees from my students.

2. I feel happy when I sing and when my students are able to repeat what I teach.

I will feel happy when my students do not come to the classes to bother me unnecessarily

3. Very rarely I get the near-God-feeling while singing some lines and I consider that feeling as bliss!

Very rarely would I get the pleasure of my student understanding what I intend to say and spare me the need of repeating myself.

It is as simple as that.

Yes, I completely concur with the simplicity statement.

 

[sangom]

Dear Sir,

Clouds come and go...It is the Sun that remains ever the same..that's why we need the Grace of God to blow away the Asuric clouds of Karma so that the Sun in us can be revealed and our true nature of JnaanaBhaskara will shine hence forth..otherwise why do you think Thyagaraja sang this:

raNadhIra sarva sAra
sukumAra budha vihAra
danuja nIra dhara samIraNa
karuNA rasa paripUrNa
jAra cOra pAhi mAm


Dauntless in battle! O essence of everything!
Tender one! Lord who abides in the hearts of the wise!
O wind which drives away the asura-clouds!
One brimming with the juice of Mercy!
O paramour ! O thief (of butter)! Protect me.

P.S. Technically I have not answered your question..but that's what Matajis/Gurujis do..they do not answer your questions and confuse the Bhakta further!LOL

Going off-topic being an equal privilege, let me say that this Kriti, "vara leela gaana lola..." is not accepted as Thyagaraja's composition by one section of musicians/musicologists. Muthuswamy Dikshitar composed a few songs to show that western tunes can be easily handled by those who knew Carnatic music; it is the belief that some staunch Thyagaraja disciple or in the lineage of disciples (Sishya paramparaa) must have composed this.

 

[Raghy]

Dear Shri Raghy,

There may be a number of ways to classify feelings. But what I am saying is , based on the permanence of the feelings, we can classify it as pleasure, happiness and bliss. This simply corresponds to our common sense experience except of course when we talk of bliss, which in the true sense is very very rare.

Sri. Sravna, Greetings.

In my opinion, the feeling termed by yourself as 'bliss' is not rare. ( Personally for me, pleasure, happiness & bliss are all the same). When you connect someone psychologically and that person gets immensely benefitted by that connection, the feeling you experience is bliss; you act with a selfless intention, only to help that someone. When we think about it, each one of us make many such connections. So, bliss is not something reserved for saints only.

Pleasure, happiness or bliss.... no matter what name we use to call any or all of those feelings, they all are temperorary. None of them are permanent. The whole lot is nothing but an illusion. Even the bliss experienced by self less connection is an illusion. Our ego causes such illusion. We always think we are more important than we actually ever are.

Our mind is seperate from our body. Our mind is the 'self' that feeds our ego. Our body is just a tool. What is the difference between you and me? For an alien, we are just the same. You have just as many limbs as I do; your body functions exactly the same way as my body. When we purchase a bunch of 'katharikkai' ( கத்தரிக்காய்), although each individual கத்தரிக்காய் is slightly different to others, we don't go around naming each கத்தரிக்காய் individually... similarly, Raghy & Sravna are just the same. But there is an ocean of difference between your mind and my mind... your mind is quite developed, inquistive and reformed where as my mind is.. nevermind!... Our physical body is just the tool. So all the pleasures are just few chemical reactions and electrical current passing through our nervous system. In my previous post I spoke about pain becoming the pleasure and intense pleasure becoming pain just to show such signals can be interpretated differently. It may sound kinky, but that gave me an important insight.

In the OP you mentioned only the pleasure, happiness and bliss but you did not mention about the opposite feelings. They are important too. We all know, there is no such pain that could be permanent. All pains are temperarory ( including the phantom pain). Similarly, all pleasures are temperarory too.

Self realisation is the ability to seperate our mind from our physical body. Seperation doesn't exactly mean detaching from the physical body altogether. It can't happen. It doesn't mean I don't scream when someone hammers my nail by a hammer.... I do on top of my voice..... But the later reaction counts.

Cheers!

 

[sravna]

Sri. Sravna, Greetings.

In my opinion, the feeling termed by yourself as 'bliss' is not rare. ( Personally for me, pleasure, happiness & bliss are all the same). When you connect someone psychologically and that person gets immensely benefitted by that connection, the feeling you experience is bliss; you act with a selfless intention, only to help that someone. When we think about it, each one of us make many such connections. So, bliss is not something reserved for saints only.

Pleasure, happiness or bliss.... no matter what name we use to call any or all of those feelings, they all are temperorary. None of them are permanent. The whole lot is nothing but an illusion. Even the bliss experienced by self less connection is an illusion. Our ego causes such illusion. We always think we are more important than we actually ever are.

Our mind is seperate from our body. Our mind is the 'self' that feeds our ego. Our body is just a tool. What is the difference between you and me? For an alien, we are just the same. You have just as many limbs as I do; your body functions exactly the same way as my body. When we purchase a bunch of 'katharikkai' ( கத்தரிக்காய்), although each individual கத்தரிக்காய் is slightly different to others, we don't go around naming each கத்தரிக்காய் individually... similarly, Raghy & Sravna are just the same. But there is an ocean of difference between your mind and my mind... your mind is quite developed, inquistive and reformed where as my mind is.. nevermind!... Our physical body is just the tool. So all the pleasures are just few chemical reactions and electrical current passing through our nervous system. In my previous post I spoke about pain becoming the pleasure and intense pleasure becoming pain just to show such signals can be interpretated differently. It may sound kinky, but that gave me an important insight.

In the OP you mentioned only the pleasure, happiness and bliss but you did not mention about the opposite feelings. They are important too. We all know, there is no such pain that could be permanent. All pains are temperarory ( including the phantom pain). Similarly, all pleasures are temperarory too.

Self realisation is the ability to seperate our mind from our physical body. Seperation doesn't exactly mean detaching from the physical body altogether. It can't happen. It doesn't mean I don't scream when someone hammers my nail by a hammer.... I do on top of my voice..... But the later reaction counts.

Cheers!

Ok Shri Raghy, when I talked about bliss, what I had in mind was that bliss happens when you are irreversibly into a state of tranquility. Whatever happens you do not sway from that state. I have a feeling that it can happen because it is not impossible to react in a balanced way to everything though I also believe it is not fully trainable. There has to be a natural component to it. I agree that people can get a glimpse of that state with the frequency depending on how well balanced their mind can be.

Body I think doesn't act on its own. It is due to the influence of the mind that even the chemical reactions you are talking of happens. Even though all of us have more or less the same type of body, the reaction of the body to a stimulus depends on the reaction of the mind. So again it depends on how well the mind is developed. Pleasure and happiness in my view happens when the mind is still developing and ends in bliss when the development of the mind consummates.

 

[renuka]

Body I think doesn't act on its own. It is due to the influence of the mind that even the chemical reactions you are talking of happens. Even though all of us have more or less the same type of body, the reaction of the body to a stimulus depends on the reaction of the mind. So again it depends on how well the mind is developed. Pleasure and happiness in my view happens when the mind is still developing and ends in bliss when the development of the mind consummates.

Dear Sravna,

Some bodily functions take place without the need of the mind too.

Take a heart out of the body and place it in a suitable environment and it will keep on beating.
So that proves that mind is not needed.
We also have what we call reflexes..just say I am typing this and suddenly some insect flies near my eye..even before I realize it my eyelids would shut to protect my eye...that is a reflex..no mind involved too.

Every human reaction is basically the same...Just say I blindfold two men.

One a so called developed mind in your definition and another a so called not so developed mind in your definition(I have no idea why we actually still even need to classify minds!LOL)

Don't let them know what we are going to do to them..we ask them to hold a red hot iron rod and believe me both are going to let go of the iron rod and scream in pain.

A simple experiment like this will just disprove the need to even classify a human mind as primitive(pleasure seeker), developing(happiness suffused) and developed(blissful state)!LOL

 

[sangom]

Dear Sravna,

...(I have no idea why we actually still even need to classify minds!LOL)

Smt. Renuka,

I think that Sri Sravna wants periodical reassurance/confirmation to his imagination that he is really progressing in his path to attain that state of bliss about which he talks and which tries to put as the summum bonum of human existence. And this he probably does because he has been too carried away by our hindu religious writings about brahmajnana, brahmaananda, moksha, etc. But it will be well to remember that nobody so far appears to have really got brahmajnaana, though many of the Rigvedic rishis probably had an experience of the state of bliss due to their Soma drink.

 

[sravna]

Smt. Renuka,

I think that Sri Sravna wants periodical reassurance/confirmation to his imagination that he is really progressing in his path to attain that state of bliss about which he talks and which tries to put as the summum bonum of human existence. And this he probably does because he has been too carried away by our hindu religious writings about brahmajnana, brahmaananda, moksha, etc. But it will be well to remember that nobody so far appears to have really got brahmajnaana, though many of the Rigvedic rishis probably had an experience of the state of bliss due to their Soma drink.

Dear Shri Sangom,

Can't we see the evolution when we compare animals and humans? Animals we can say do not have the feelings of happiness or sorrow in the way as humans do though they experience pleasure and pain. Why is it people are so skeptical when it comes to accepting that it is possible to have an irreversible tranquility? The fact that it is very rare and that one has not seen anyone achieve that, doesn't make it impossible, does it? It is actually supposed to be very rare and as you pointed out I think it is the summum bonum of human existence. What more is there to achieve after one attains an everlasting state of happiness?

 

[sravna]

Dear Sravna,

Some bodily functions take place without the need of the mind too.

Take a heart out of the body and place it in a suitable environment and it will keep on beating.
So that proves that mind is not needed.
We also have what we call reflexes..just say I am typing this and suddenly some insect flies near my eye..even before I realize it my eyelids would shut to protect my eye...that is a reflex..no mind involved too.

Every human reaction is basically the same...Just say I blindfold two men.

One a so called developed mind in your definition and another a so called not so developed mind in your definition(I have no idea why we actually still even need to classify minds!LOL)

Don't let them know what we are going to do to them..we ask them to hold a red hot iron rod and believe me both are going to let go of the iron rod and scream in pain.

A simple experiment like this will just disprove the need to even classify a human mind as primitive(pleasure seeker), developing(happiness suffused) and developed(blissful state)!LOL

Dear Renuka,

I am not saying that mind is required for every function of the body. But the way mind reacts to something may be different for different persons and produces different effects in the body.

 

[sangom]

Dear Shri Sangom,

Can't we see the evolution when we compare animals and humans? Animals we can say do not have the feelings of happiness or sorrow in the way as humans do though they experience pleasure and pain.

Dear Shri Sravna,

What is the basis on which you make such a statement? AFAIK, elephants are reported to gather in numbers to grieve when one member of the herd dies, by accident. If it is a natural death, the dying elephant goes far away from the herd and spends its days till death, something like the "Mahaaprasthaana" of olden days and the Jain ideal of fasting to death.

Crows routinely gather when they see a young chiclet fallen to the ground from the nest high up or if there is an electrocuted crow seen somewhere. They make such a harsh and continuous noise till humans somehow remove those bodies out of sight. I have seen this many times till recently, when the crow population has drastically reduced here in our place.

Are these not indications that even other living beings have some awareness about loss of one of their kind? If so, is it not proof enough that they must also have happiness and sorrow just as we humans have? Even among human beings different peoples express their emotions in different ways, you see. Can we, therefore, say that animals are less evolved as compared to humans? I think the very basic premise on which you are building your case is itself faulty.

Why is it people are so skeptical when it comes to accepting that it is possible to have an irreversible tranquility? The fact that it is very rare and that one has not seen anyone achieve that, doesn't make it impossible, does it? It is actually supposed to be very rare and as you pointed out I think it is the summum bonum of human existence. What more is there to achieve after one attains an everlasting state of happiness?

Irreversible tranquility on a complete scale — physical, mental and intellectual — cannot be a sign of life but will only be a sign of death, or cessation of life. India has had, for about 500 years, the Hathayoga which emphasizes self mortification "such as standing on one leg, holding up the arms, inhaling smoke with the head inverted &c." (Hatha yoga - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) It is from the Yoga and Hathayoga concepts that we get the elusive ideal such as "irreversible tranquility" and so on. We will be able to see such quaint posed yogis in our pilgrimage centres like Kasi, Haridwar, etc. And, how come in the concluding sentence of your post you suddenly change from everlasting tranquility to everlasting state of happiness, without any supporting evidence?

 

[renuka]

Dear Renuka,

I am not saying that mind is required for every function of the body. But the way mind reacts to something may be different for different persons and produces different effects in the body.

Dear Sravna,

Yes I agree the human mind reacts differently but it is strongly influenced by time,place and person.

The Human Mind is as restless and as fickle as untamed wild horses...so we can not generalize how someone will react to a situation at anyone given time.

There have been cases where apparent strong and stable individuals who might suddenly react in an aggressive manner.

So I do not find anyway we can broadly classify types of minds.

Ok let's get simple...take your mind and my mind..we think quite differently but surely sometimes we might think alike in somethings and also at any given time we might even react totally out of our usual self.

We have no idea at all..how fickle the human mind can be.

There is no such thing as Mr A think like this way 24/7 and Mr B thinks like that way 24/7.

Remember the ever giving/ever donating Karna in Mahabharat?

He gave an object to Lord Krishna with his left hand cos his right hand was not clean at that time cos he feared if he washed his right hand and then gave the object there was a possibility that he could change his mind and not give the object to Lord Krishna.

Even Karna did not dare classify his mind.

Sravna..sometimes I feel gradation and classification of even the human mind is a dangerous zone to be threading.

That can lead to the feeling that some are the chosen ones and we all know what happened to the world when some person thought that Germans were the chosen ones!

P.S Pride of Attaining Spiritualism is the worst enemy known to mankind.

 

[renuka]

Why is it people are so skeptical when it comes to accepting that it is possible to have an irreversible tranquility? The fact that it is very rare and that one has not seen anyone achieve that, doesn't make it impossible, does it?

Dear Sravna,

No one is being skeptical about anything here.
Yes surely it is possible to have irreversible tranquility and many Jeevan Muktas might be walking around in this world.

But the difference is if we ask a true Jeevan Mutka "Sir..how many types of minds are there?"

His answer might be "What mind?"

Individuals who have gone beyond never grade and classify anything or anyone.
They view everyone as they same as themselves.

Doesn't Geeta also say 'Panditah has Sama Darshinah"...Lord Krishna never said "Panditahs keep classifying various grades of minds"

 

[SANDHYAV]

Ranjani Gayatri - 10 - bilahari amritavarshini sindhubhairavi jOnpuri - mArgazhi mahA utsavam 2010 - YouTube

Happy new year

 

[sravna]

Dear Shri Sangom and Dear Renuka,

I have a feeling that you think that since I consider myself spiritually inclined, I am advocating ideas that support that view. Let me tell you that it is not of any such bias I am putting forth my views. I am open to correcting my views if rebutted.

Shri Sangom, I do not even have to cite the feelings that humans uniquely possess or any such thing to support my point that humans are more evolved than animals. To argue otherwise is even opposed to a person of science which I think you are.

Now considering that animals can experience pleasure, nobody can deny that and they can even experience happiness in a limited way. But bliss? I think no way even if for a moment I assume that even people who are not self realized can have that feeling temporarily. Now I anticipate that you will say that such a feeling is in no way really significant to be granted a higher status than happiness and it is just some reactions inside the body to something.

Now my argument against that is, you experience that feeling when you are not focusing on self but performing some selfless activity. Now this has connection to the idea of permanence of such feeling because, sorrow generally happens when the event causing sorrow affects the self. The more you distance the feelings of self, the more you are distancing the possibility of sorrow.

But though a new problem has cropped up which is you are empathetic now and sorrows of others affect you but this is a totally different flaw but at least is a sure sign that you are progressing towards a balanced state.

 

[sangom]

Dear Shri Sangom and Dear Renuka,

I have a feeling that you think that since I consider myself spiritually inclined, I am advocating ideas that support that view. Let me tell you that it is not of any such bias I am putting forth my views. I am open to correcting my views if rebutted.

Shri Sangom, I do not even have to cite the feelings that humans uniquely possess or any such thing to support my point that humans are more evolved than animals. To argue otherwise is even opposed to a person of science which I think you are.

Now considering that animals can experience pleasure, nobody can deny that and they can even experience happiness in a limited way. But bliss? I think no way even if for a moment I assume that even people who are not self realized can have that feeling temporarily. Now I anticipate that you will say that such a feeling is in no way really significant to be granted a higher status than happiness and it is just some reactions inside the body to something.

Now my argument against that is, you experience that feeling when you are not focusing on self but performing some selfless activity. Now this has connection to the idea of permanence of such feeling because, sorrow generally happens when the event causing sorrow affects the self. The more you distance the feelings of self, the more you are distancing the possibility of sorrow.

But though a new problem has cropped up which is you are empathetic now and sorrows of others affect you but this is a totally different flaw but at least is a sure sign that you are progressing towards a balanced state.

Dear Shri Sravna,

It is not at all my intention to hurt you or just belittle your views. Please forgive me if my language is not good enough and my writing gives out such an impression.

My argument is that the idea that Man has evolved from animals is the Darwinian opinion which is being increasingly questioned now. Also, we do not have any ability to rule out animals, birds and all other living beings do not or cannot experience happiness; therefore, it is not correct to conclude that "they can even experience happiness in a limited way", etc. Your effort at gradation, postulating that humans are more evolved and so they must have by rule, some more abilities, etc., are unproved. Equally unproved is the existence of "bliss" as described by you. I believe that perfect tranquility will not be a state of bliss or aananda, if that is what you seek to mean by the word "bliss". Complete tranquility of mind will be, on the contrary, a state of nothingness, in which hardly any signs of life will be evident. Hence the Sunyavaada of the Madhyamika Buddhism may be a more honest account, arising from actual experience of that state, than the 'aananda' publicized by our philosophy.

Irrespective of whether bliss is aananda or sunyata, I believe we human beings need not strive after this elusive promise of aananda, but that we should develop a change in our attitudes which will give us more and more contentment in whatever state we are in. Going after bliss is also a type of "Kaama" or desire. I am reminded of Kannadasan's lines —

இருக்கும் இடத்தை விட்டு இல்லாத இடம் தேடி
எங்கெங்கோ அலைகின்றார் ஞானத் தங்கமே
அவர் ஏதும் அறியாரடி ஞானத் தங்கமே

If once you are very clear that this whole worldly life is nothing but a drama and you are just an actor who has been sort of thrown into the stage without being told anything about your role, script, dialogues, etc., you will surely but gradually progress to a stage where you will be content with whatever you are, whatever you have been able to do/achieve, etc. There need not be any special effort at gradation, running after bliss etc.

This in sum is my opinion, please.

 

[sravna]

Dear Shri Sangom,

Unwittingly you have shown a problem with science. You do not know what the final word is. Tomorrow old theories may be replaced by totally new ones even completely contrary to the old ones. If one cannot base one's argument on science or even on intuition or common sense, what is he going to base it upon?

 

[sravna]

Dear Shri Sangom,

In my view there a universal proof to any hypothesis that one may propose. See if our mind can understand it clearly when it is presented. I assume it is presented in a lucid manner. The more the depth of the idea and so more it is in touch with reality, the more people will see it readily. These ideas are generally the deeply intuited ones. That is the reason deeply intuited ideas even if without evidence are some of the most authentic ones. They seldom need to be changed unlike in the case of the ideas of science .

Truth if presented in the right way doesn't need external evidence. People just have a feel for it. And indeed it will be proved sooner or later.

 

[prasad1]

Dear Shri Sangom,

Unwittingly you have shown a problem with science. You do not know what the final word is. Tomorrow old theories may be replaced by totally new ones even completely contrary to the old ones. If one cannot base one's argument on science or even on intuition or common sense, what is he going to base it upon?

It is not the problem of science alone.

Sri Sankaracharya sums up the entire message of Vedanta in three
crisp aphorism like sentences. They are :


(a) Brahma Satyam, (b) Jagat Mithya, and (c) Jivo Brahmaiva naparah.
Brahma Satyam
Brahman is the all-pervasive life principle, life force, or the pure consciousness. It is not the conditioned consciousness, which manifests at the level of the brain and is under the influence of mind, intellect and ego. It is the undisturbed state of consciousness that exists beyond time and space and is the silence between the thoughts.
Consciousness is the ultimate truth, the timeless and transcendental reality. It exists first matter follows after.


Jagat Mithya :


The word Jagat embraces in itself this entire world, this cosmos.
All that which is or can be an 'object' of our knowledge. It includes not only the gross but also the subtle 'objects'. The thoughts, emotions, the energy all come under this word 'Jagat'. That which is near or far, inside or outside, now or later, good or bad everything is part of this Jagat.



Jivo Brahmaiva naparah :


This sutra means that 'every jiva - the apparent limited & finite entity is basically the infinite & limitless Brahman, and nothing
else. The truth & essence of an indiidual is the truth & essence of this whole world or rather God. Every Jiva is basically God himself wearing a cloak of limited equipments, and moreover, identified with ones equipment he lives a limited & transient life.

 

[ozone]

Irrespective of whether bliss is aananda or sunyata, I believe we human beings need not strive after this elusive promise of aananda, but that we should develop a change in our attitudes which will give us more and more contentment in whatever state we are in.

A danger to that thinking is the possibility of becoming complacent and lazy or dull with no ambitions or inspiration.
And for this reason only I suppose

Going after bliss is also a type of "Kaama" or desire.

is being recommended.

If once you are very clear that this whole worldly life is nothing but a drama and you are just an actor who has been sort of thrown into the stage without being told anything about your role, script, dialogues, etc., you will surely but gradually progress to a stage where you will be content with whatever you are

I suppose that exact state of mind or intellect described above is what is prescribed as an entry criteria for understanding the 'bliss'.
Once you attain this state, what are you expected to do? and how are you expected to lead a life?
I suppose the atma jnana at this state is expected to help and that realisation itself is bliss.

 

[sangom]

Dear Shri Sangom,

Unwittingly you have shown a problem with science. You do not know what the final word is. Tomorrow old theories may be replaced by totally new ones even completely contrary to the old ones. If one cannot base one's argument on science or even on intuition or common sense, what is he going to base it upon?

Dear Shri Sravna,

I cannot say that I completely understand the above. The view that humans are more evolved than animals is based on the Darwinian hypothesis, imho. I don't think we can say the hindu scriptures support this view because we have any number of accounts — from Gajendra Moksham, Matsya, Koorma Varaaha and Narasimha (?) avataaras, Hanuman and the vaanara brigades of Ramayana (Kindly see this thread for fuller info about the superhuman abilities of Hanuman) — our hindu religion considers the animal kingdom as equal to the humans as far as religious devotion, bhakti, etc., are concerned. That was why I mentioned that the Darwin theory is being questioned now.

Even if Darwin is re-enthroned tomorrow, your hypothesis will be contrary to hinduism itself unless, day after tomorrow, say, all our non-human gods as well as bhaktas are all disowned by hindus.

Intuition can at best tell you some final result but I don't think it is possible to intuit arguments. As to commonsense, in this particular case, I take it that my objections were based on commonsense only.

In the result, if you say that these are your beliefs only, and not based on any rational argument, then I have no case.

 

[sangom]

Irrespective of whether bliss is aananda or sunyata, I believe we human beings need not strive after this elusive promise of aananda, but that we should develop a change in our attitudes which will give us more and more contentment in whatever state we are in.

A danger to that thinking is the possibility of becoming complacent and lazy or dull with no ambitions or inspiration.
And for this reason only I suppose

Going after bliss is also a type of "Kaama" or desire.

is being recommended.

Dear ozone,

If anyone is worried about ambition, not being lazy or dull, etc., such persons should not imho aspire for this so-called bliss. And, if one is dead set towards attaining this bliss, then he/she should not bother about any of the consequences. In short the policy of கூழுக்கும் ஆசை, மீசைக்கும் ஆசை will not help.I have seen many persons who are generally content with whatever station in life (official, domestic, familial, etc.) they have and, as you rightly say, they do not fret and fume and try to show their ambitiousness to the world in many ways. But they do not leave any chance for improving their lot, status or whatever, if and when any opportunity arises. In the final count such people are winners in their own way.

Going after bliss will not necessarily make the person successful in a worldly way. On the contrary I have seen people getting partially at least, kinky and towards the end people may regard such people, out of kindness and all, as "bhaktas". I have not seen any one claiming that he has got brahmajnaana.

If once you are very clear that this whole worldly life is nothing but a drama and you are just an actor who has been sort of thrown into the stage without being told anything about your role, script, dialogues, etc., you will surely but gradually progress to a stage where you will be content with whatever you are

I suppose that exact state of mind or intellect described above is what is prescribed as an entry criteria for understanding the 'bliss'.
Once you attain this state, what are you expected to do? and how are you expected to lead a life?
I suppose the atma jnana at this state is expected to help and that realisation itself is bliss.

What I said has nothing to do with the so-called "bliss". I consider it to be a mirage brought into the hindu philosophy due to the circumstances created by one too many "darsanas" and aacaaryas. While poorva meemaamsa did not have any such notion (all fellows died and went to the pitru loka but they got recognition in proportion to their merit earned here by performing the various yajnas or sacrifices.), the upanishad composers had to come out with the reward if any for following the Uttara meemaamsa (you see there was some considerable period during which the two meemaamsa systems fought against each other, as may be gleaned from the life of Adi sankara.) The vedantist school promised brahmaananda; advaita says you can get it even during this life itself while VA &D, I think, deny brahmananda during life time but only after demise. (Why do they do so?) Obviously Shri Sravna follows advaita.

 

[sravna]

It seems that you do not fully appreciate what leads to the state of bliss. First of all it is not something that you consciously seek and attain. It is simply something that ensues after you learn all the lessons of life. You do not feel any emotions because emotions are something which are caused when your mind is affected. Desires are also not caused because the mind does not feel the need for external gratifications.The mind has simply learnt to be not influenced. When mind is free of the afflictions of emotions and desires it has the peace which cannot be experienced otherwise and that peace is permanent because emotions and desires never bother you.

You are not doing anything for the sake of bliss but for the sake of progressing from your present
condition which offers scope for improvement and when you do improve is when you automatically experience bliss.

 

[ozone]

If anyone is worried about ambition, not being lazy or dull, etc., such persons should not imho aspire for this so-called bliss. And, if one is dead set towards attaining this bliss, then he/she should not bother about any of the consequences.

Dear Shri Sangom,
My statement was in response to your
[

Irrespective of whether bliss is aananda or sunyata, I believe we human beings need not strive after this elusive promise of aananda, but that we should develop a change in our attitudes which will give us more and more contentment in whatever state we are in.

where your prescription was to not go after bliss, but with what you stated. So, you must be concurring with what I am saying.

I have not seen any one claiming that he has got brahmajnaana.

One of the fall out of being a brahmajnani is that you would not be interested in such claims

 

[Raghy]

Ok Shri Raghy, when I talked about bliss, what I had in mind was that bliss happens when you are irreversibly into a state of tranquility. Whatever happens you do not sway from that state. I have a feeling that it can happen because it is not impossible to react in a balanced way to everything though I also believe it is not fully trainable. There has to be a natural component to it. I agree that people can get a glimpse of that state with the frequency depending on how well balanced their mind can be.

Body I think doesn't act on its own. It is due to the influence of the mind that even the chemical reactions you are talking of happens. Even though all of us have more or less the same type of body, the reaction of the body to a stimulus depends on the reaction of the mind. So again it depends on how well the mind is developed. Pleasure and happiness in my view happens when the mind is still developing and ends in bliss when the development of the mind consummates.

Sri.Sravna, Greetings. I wish you a happy new year.

When the mind is in an irreversible tranquility or such a very peaceful state it is in a state of 'Brahmam'. Whatever happens, that state may not be disturbed at all. But in my humble opinion, bliss can not be experienced at that state either.

For one to experience bliss, one needs to connect psychologically and emotionally with an other person ( or an animal) and one of the entity should have been benefitted. In other words, one mind should reach out and touch an other mind. At that point, the satisfaction experienced is bliss.

One can not experience bliss on his/her own. One need not have a balanced or developed mind either. One can be a complete nincompoop and still can experience bliss if one cares for other persons/animals. It just takes a self less act from one to experience bliss very briefly. As the frequency of such acts increases, the state of bliss extends too.

Sometimes body may not need mind's direction to act. It just acts. I just brought the example of physical body to show the similarities between two persons ant yet at the same time exhibits so much difference between the minds due to varied reactions to circumstances.

Personally I don't think mind 'develops' at all. It is the question of when we are ready to accept all or most of the experiences in our life calmly. The calmer we are, we think our mind is the 'more developed'. But if we don't get exposed to various circumstances, we may not know of our reactions either. In other words, we can't really compare persons. One person may have lead a completely sheltered life; he/she may not have any reason to be anxious in life. Such a person's calmness doesn't mean that person's mind is 'developed'. (Unfortunately, I have noticed anxiety and anger even amoung such completely sheltered persons is beside the point here).

So, to experience bliss one need not have a 'developed mind'; one may very well be a nincompoop and still experience bliss. There no such thing as a 'developed mind'. At the end of the day, body is just a tool.

Cheers!