11 September 2014

Dialogue with Jay about Ranjit Maharaj, Parabrahman and the Atman and the Void


I need you to define your use of the word/concept, Void……My experience of inner void is like  the outside of  the body there is space everywhere with object in the space. The space is not  modified by the objects nor can you say the objects are separate from the space…. now Inner Space is the same but more subtle, there is subtle differences in the inner space one containing the seeds of manifestation termed the casual body the more subtler is supacasual body the cause of the causal body which contains Knowledge in the form of Awareness . this is also recognised as the Body of Brahman another name is MahaMaya….This Awareness isn’t ParaBrahman!!

Ed's Response: I agree 100%.  I call this recognition and identification with Turiya or Atman.  Not Parabrahman.  

In any case i am not sure how you are using the word Void……Maybe Void is the Zero that Ranjit pointed at so often in his talks….Many years ago when i used to do allot of sitting meditation there was a time that i would experience a luminous void of swirling vortex energies….for a long time i believed by disappearing into this i would be enlightened and loose completely the sense of self that was believed to be the source of my suffering….of course this was not correct but yet it is a stage that i can only say that I needed to pass through……This was way before i met Ranjit Maharaj…I had no idea about my Self nature, coming from many years of Buddhist training i firmly believed there was no Self, it was a very confusing period…

Ed: I am not familiar with Ranjit.  I did not like his writing style or abstractness.  I like Siddharameshwar and use his terminology.

I call Turiya the manifest Self, versus the Witness, the noumenal, or non-manifest Self.  For me the Void is the inner and out spaciousness that permeates and contains all inner and out experience.  It is still part and parcel of the Manifest Self.

Let me say one more thing before i move on…..Everything seems to replicate itself from the most subtle to the grossest, all appearing similar to the prior but in each replication there is distortion it isn’t the real deal…..So lets say Parabrahman seems to appear to be Replicated to Appear as Brahman…you see they are both a Witness….The difference is Brahman is identified with the apparent creation because it is all Consciousness the very substance of everything and Nothing/ Form/Formless. Now ParABRHAMAN THE ORIGINAL FACELESS FACE ISN’T ATTACHED TO ANYTHING, IS NEVER MODIFIED IS CAUSELESS AND ABSOLUTELY NOTHING  CAN EVER BE SAID TO GIVE ANY INDICATION OF OUR ONLY REAL I. I AM NOT IN TIME OR SPACE NOR DO I COME AND GO, UNKNOWABLE AM I….Everthing else is transient and there for not Real…..In a way to be fair I would say everything is real and not real at the same time because I is Real and I is eternal substratum of all form and formless appearance….This is all my Self Knowledge through experience, sure many outside influences came  when needed to shed light call it Grace….Also i agree with Ranjit Maharaj understanding is shared through knowledge using words to point etc…….You may be of a different persuasion, i respect that. I can pretty much read discourse by anyone that is pointing correctly and derive what they are getting at…where when i started out with this so called official seeking it was very unclear, but interesting  what kept the me going this is  the Amazement of Grace…...

Ed: I mostly agree with your characterization. Just because phenomena are temporary, does not mean they are not real.

Also, you are both the Manifest and Unmanifest Self.  You can experience their identification when you have fully experienced both. Parabrahman and Atman are one in my experience.  AND, all four states are permeated by Emptiness.  All phenomena are permeated by the Void, and the Void is filled with objects and experiences, whether of the inner or outer worlds.  

Now you cannot directly experience Parabrahman as an object, but only know of its separate existence when you reside and rest in the Witness; then you "apprehend" that all that you see, hear, taste and touch are not you.

But eventually they all come together: the Manifest Self or Atman, the Causal Body, the Subtle Body, the Physical Body, all permeated by the Void, and YOU, as Parabrahman witnessing the Play of Consciousness.


  1. Maharaj was once quoted as saying, "chemicals come together in the brain and the I am appears." That would seem to suggest that the synthesis of neurochemicals creates the sense of "I am" we all experience in our formative years. But would that also suggest that if there were to be the loss of the sense of self(whether through psychelic drugs or whatever) then these chemicals simply dissolve or disappear?

  2. No. He says the I Am is always available to the Jnani; it is just that it is "seen-through." meaning is has the "being unreal" property of unreality.

    The I Am is not readily available to all, whether it exists or not in each of us embedded in beingness. For most it takes practice of hunting it in meditation. So even if the chemicals are there now, and the I Am is available, for many it is hidden in mental and environmental noise, or else the person does not believe in a Self, and not believing, he is blind to it,

    1. That's "interesting" for lack of a better word to describe this. The I Am sense is then just a mirage or being "unreal" as you state, yet one needs to locate it through meditation only to discover at some point it's very "unreality." Yes, in fact, I seem to recall in the Nisargadatta Gita, he mentions that.