Pleasure, Happiness, Bliss

[sangom]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

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.

Dear Shri Sravna,

Though you have not addressed this post to anyone, I take it that you had myself in mind mainly. Hence I respond.

I agree with much of what has been said, i.e., "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."
But when you go, immediately thereafter to, "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.", I disagree because the peace or tranquility suddenly turns into "bliss". That is where our disagreement lies. Hope the position is clear now.

 

[sravna]

Dear Shri Raghy,

A very Happy New Year To You too!

In my last post, I pointed out the mistake that Shri. Sangom was making. I think I can say the same of you. Bliss is something that happens when you have the capacity of equipoise under any condition. For that should not the mind be mature enough? That is what I call a developed mind. One does not have to worry about experiencing bliss. It is a consequence of the above. Thus it is not the experiencing per se that is significant but the cause of such an experience.

 

[sravna]

Dear Shri Sravna,

Though you have not addressed this post to anyone, I take it that you had myself in mind mainly. Hence I respond.

I agree with much of what has been said, i.e., "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."
But when you go, immediately thereafter to, "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.", I disagree because the peace or tranquility suddenly turns into "bliss". That is where our disagreement lies. Hope the position is clear now.

Dear Shri Sangom,

The last post was meant for you only. Sorry about that.

My understanding of the term bliss considering that one lives in a physical world, is something which makes you perfectly happy. By "perfectly happy", what do I mean?

(1) Is it the intensity of happiness or
(2) the duration of happiness or
(3) both?

The first can be ruled out because extremely happy at one moment but not happy at another cannot be termed perfect happiness.

Is it then the duration? It is very much possible because happiness may range from contentment to extreme joy. Contentment is peaceful happiness. Since contentment is happiness the mind is still prone to producing emotions and is still not perfectly calm. So from the state of contentment one can get disgruntled. Tranquility is a higher level of contentment which is not only the fact you are satisfied but dead right about being satisfed. So the mind is thus very still, does not produce emotions and cannot be disturbed. It is in fact the ultimate or perfect happiness if I can use the term happiness.

Coming to the third possibility, given that we are in a physical world the intensity of happiness cannot be maintained all the time and it also means that the mind is prone to emotions and hence is not ideal.

 

[Raghy]

Dear Shri Raghy,

A very Happy New Year To You too!

In my last post, I pointed out the mistake that Shri. Sangom was making. I think I can say the same of you. Bliss is something that happens when you have the capacity of equipoise under any condition. For that should not the mind be mature enough? That is what I call a developed mind. One does not have to worry about experiencing bliss. It is a consequence of the above. Thus it is not the experiencing per se that is significant but the cause of such an experience.

Sri. Sravna, Greetings.

An quipoise mind would not differentiate between a happy occassion and a not so happy occassion. An quipoise mind would not feel happy for certain instances and would not feel sad in ceratin instances. Since it is an quipoise mind, it would treat all experiences equally without any emotions. An equipoise mind may very well be a developed or matured mind depending upon who analyses that mind. Personally for me, mind is just a mind; it is irrelevant who that mind belongs to.... it could be a porukki's mind or it could be a saint's mind.. both are just the same.

But bliss is a feeling of happiness by your own defenition. If the mind can distinguish happiness, then it can distinguish sadness too. That's why it can not be an quipoise mind. In other words, an quipoise mind would not experience bliss.

Cheers!

 

[renuka]

An equiposed mind is often confused to be like a brain dead mind that is inert and does not react to situations.

But frankly speaking when we humans are suffused with consciousness we are never ever Inert.

An equiposed mind has the capacity to experience both happiness and sorrow but the difference is it does not over react to any of the situations.... in the sense that it does not get euphoric and carried away/proud with success/happiness and neither does it get despondent and dejected with failure/sorrow.

 

[sravna]

Sri. Sravna, Greetings.

An quipoise mind would not differentiate between a happy occassion and a not so happy occassion. An quipoise mind would not feel happy for certain instances and would not feel sad in ceratin instances. Since it is an quipoise mind, it would treat all experiences equally without any emotions. An equipoise mind may very well be a developed or matured mind depending upon who analyses that mind. Personally for me, mind is just a mind; it is irrelevant who that mind belongs to.... it could be a porukki's mind or it could be a saint's mind.. both are just the same.

But bliss is a feeling of happiness by your own defenition. If the mind can distinguish happiness, then it can distinguish sadness too. That's why it can not be an quipoise mind. In other words, an quipoise mind would not experience bliss.

Cheers!

Dear Shri Raghy,

The main point of disagreement seems to be on what we consider as bliss.

I am using the word happiness only because I have to explain bliss in terms of something. To use a more apt explanation, happiness is the good feelings of the mind when it is separate from the soul whereas, bliss happens when the the mind becomes one with the soul. Since when the mind is separate from the soul it is not completely in sync with the reality it can experience sorrow. But in the latter case it always experiences bliss as it is in total sync with the reality,

I am not sure whether you will accept the above explanation as I know you do not believe in the existence of a soul.

 

[Raghy]

Dear Shri Raghy,

The main point of disagreement seems to be on what we consider as bliss.

I am using the word happiness only because I have to explain bliss in terms of something. To use a more apt explanation, happiness is the good feelings of the mind when it is separate from the soul whereas, bliss happens when the the mind becomes one with the soul. Since when the mind is separate from the soul it is not completely in sync with the reality it can experience sorrow. But in the latter case it always experiences bliss as it is in total sync with the reality,

I am not sure whether you will accept the above explanation as I know you do not believe in the existence of a soul.

Dear Sri. Sravna, Greetings.

In my opinion, for bliss to take place, there has to be two entities. I can't experience bliss on my own; I have to connect with someone/something for bliss to take place. When my mind at an equipoise state, I would very well differentiate happiness and sadness without getting affected in a big way but that is not bliss. Moreover, there has to be an emotion component present for me to go out on a limb to make a selfless help with someone else/something else. I have to reach across. If I have an equipoise mind and not willing to get affected by the misery of someone else, I can't experience bliss. One may like to argue, one may have an equipoised mind and still may help others..... imagine a situation where such efforts fail.... even an equipoise mind would suffer anxiety... then it may not be an equipoised mind.

I am not writing all these out of the blue. I actually have one person in my mind who in my opinion enjoyed bliss many times. His name was Subramani. He was very slow in cognitive responses.. possibly suffered from Aspergers... But he was so kind to dogs, cats, squirrils, birds and other human beings. I watched him so many times reaching across to help others and other animals ( but unfortunately he was mostly afraid of me. I was the supervisor trying to meet the production target, on my toes all the time). But I always marvelled about this youngster.. others called him nincompoop....

If you like, you may look at the realised connection between jeevatma and Paramatma. Connection between two entities. Sorry, I can not think in the term of soul. When I don't even believe in the existence of soul, I can't associate soul with experiencing bliss.

Cheers!