Guest guest Posted November 27, 1998 Report Share Posted November 27, 1998 Hello everyone, Earlier I posted the following message off list, but have just read the discussion between Nanda and Charles. It seems relevant to the discussion that here is a person who had never heard of advaita until a couple weeks ago. Perhaps the questions I have posed will provide opportunity, as Charles has pointed out, for us to learn from each other. The importance of learning advaita may come for many reasons. I'm glad Charles pointed out that entry level isn't so high, but I also see that Nanda has a point that it might seem idle speculation until one is prepared to practice. > > Aikya and Sadananda, > As you both know, my recent experience has brought me to a need to learn. I > have many questions and have remained relatively silent because to pose the > questions, I need to make statements that come with difficulty. Several > months ago, I told a professor that I don't speak because the truth will > sound heretical if I don't say it properly. Truth and love have always been > most important to me and saying anything offensive to another's belief > (because of saying it wrong) isn't so loving. Since I have little religious > knowledge, I am ill equipped anymore to even think about the truth, let > alone speak of it. Concepts distort it enough. I have finally found you who > know non-duality and are well steeped in the tradition. If it's alright, it > would be very helpful if I may try to put in words some ideas and questions > so that you can help me make logical thought from them. > The first one I'd like to ask involves the topic you have been discussing. > Jeeva and states of waking and dreaming. Recently, I had to keep a journal > about how I came to my understanding of death for a Death and Dying course. > I described some of the experiences and states, but was left with a > question: In that state, there is no soul separate, no time either. What > exists through many bodies and lifetime experience then? I also said to him > that I used to see how we are all drops in an ocean, but now I see how the > ocean is in each drop. (This came from how I had always loved the world and > an abstraction of God reflected back and everything was one). Do these > ideas make sense to you? Can you help clarify this? In my humour, I had > written, "Is it the soul that travels then and forgets itself? A senile > soul." So it's this soul/no soul thing that has me stuck. At the core, > there is not soul, but some part of the emanation of God that we are knows > or doesn't know itself and it's the same because it does really know. It's > like God blinks and really there is no soul. We think there is. So then how > does reincarnation and memories fit? > What I suggested in the journal was that, just as the body/mind perceives > itself in time of a duration of 100 yrs, the soul perceives itself in > something like eternity, but that because there is no time in the Real, > neither of these perceptions are the core truth. I can't tell you how very > difficult it is to try to articulate what is so beyond my comprehension. I > have to just send this. There are other things to clarify, but they can > wait. > Ultimately, this would not matter except that this person in this life and > time believes that this awareness would not come unless there was a reason > for others. Truth is love and love is service, so I need new language for > this brain. A baby learning to speak. :) It is very much like that. > Fist a baby sees and hears, then it learns concepts, then it speaks. > Thanks for your help, > Tamra > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 3, 1998 Report Share Posted December 3, 1998 On Fri, 27 Nov 1998 "T. Temple" <joklumji wrote: > Recently, I had to keep a journal about how I came to my > understanding of death for a Death and Dying course. What the world calls death is simply the severing of the connection with the body. Then the question arises: what is it that animates the body? Whatever it is, it necessarily transcends the so-called death of the body. Hence your assignment. As you have expressed it, there are three factors in your assignment that need to be clear: (1) It is _your_ assignment: therefore _you_ do the work. If others do the work then they derive the benefit of the education. (2) It relates to _your_ understanding: therefore examine _your_own_ personal understanding, and express it clearly. (3) Finally, it asks _how_ you came to such understanding: therefore examine the beliefs (so-called facts) upon which your understanding is founded. Any education (etymology: ex-ducare, to lead out) worthy of the name, involves the above three in examining the contents of the mind, especially the underlying beliefs/values that colour one's whole attitude to life. This is not to denigrate the important pre- requisites of instruction and training in literacy/numeracy/logic/ morality/religion/philosophy and so on which provide the necessary tools for examining the mind dispassionately. When you have seen some of your fundamental beliefs, then you have the opportunity to change them -- but that does not mean that you have to change them. It is a question of which is in charge: are you able to choose/change/adapt your beliefs, or are you simply ruled by them? The unexamined life is not worth living. [Plato, Apology 38a, tr. B.Jowett] Note that the assignment requires you to simply examine and express your beliefs; there is no need to justify them, or fit them into some philosophical structure. It is very easy to fall into this sort of trap, so be aware that there is a danger in answering questions: the answers may so satisfy that the enquiry stops short of the final goal. The spirit of enquiry is far far more important than any "right" answers or concepts or models. There are four gate-keepers to the Realm of Liberation (moksha). They are self-control, spirit of enquiry, contentment and good company. [Yoga Vasishtha, mumukshu vyavahAra prakaraNam 11.59, tr. Venkatesananda] It is because the spirit of enquiry is so essential, that I at times respond to limited dogmatic statements, with a flame-thrower -- you may have noticed! Those that have been singed can readily understand the irritated mob sentencing Socrates to death. :-) Rather than provide brief answers to your questions, I would encourage you to join a traditional Advaita Vedanta school, or at least to read some introductory texts, such as Tattva-bodha and Atma-bodha. One translation of the latter, Self-Knowledge (Atmabodha), by Nikhilananda, Ramakrishna-Vivekananda Centre, New York, includes a long (>100 pages) introduction to Vedanta theory and practice, and Indian philosophical thought, which very concisely expresses the concepts and terminology used on this list. It is available from http://www.vedanta.com/ and http://www.amazon.com/ and http://BarnesAndNoble.com/ for $13. You will find that Advaita Vedanta is compatible with every religion: the philosophy it proclaims is the rational aspect of religion as it were, and religion is the emotional aspect of the philosophy -- both head and heart need to be engaged in this search. > I told a professor that I don't speak because the truth will > sound heretical if I don't say it properly. Stuff and nonsense! Idle (*) sentimentality! To speak the truth is simply to express the contents of your mind and heart -- without disimulation! Ask any six-year-old: they still know what it is to speak the truth -- but throughout childhood they are taught not to tell it, i.e. rather say what people expect to hear. Such dishonesty produces all sorts of problems. O, while you live, tell truth, and shame the devil. [shakespeare, King Henry IV, Part I, 3.1.62] Regards, Charles. (*) Most people equate idleness with laziness, i.e. avoiding activity, whereas it is in fact an active state; but it is useless activity. For example, the engine idles when a car is stopped at a traffic light. Don't take my word for it: look it up in a dictionary! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 3, 1998 Report Share Posted December 3, 1998 On Thu, 03 Dec 1998 "T. Temple" <joklumji wrote: > The journal assignment, as well as the class, are long over. That was clear from you post. I was drawing attention to the useful underlying principles. > The comment about not speaking the truth was not > a comment that lies replace truth. On the contrary. Truth is most > important; however, I often choose silence. Silence is not speaking the truth; lying is speaking something else. While silence may be appropriate at times, it can also be a cop out. Regards, Charles. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 3, 1998 Report Share Posted December 3, 1998 Charles, Thanks for your response. I have just finished reading Tattva-Bodha and enjoyed it. The journal assignment, as well as the class, are long over. I only relayed that one question as it was something I believed had been discussed within Advaita. The comment about not speaking the truth was not a comment that lies replace truth. On the contrary. Truth is most important; however, I often choose silence. Regards, Tamra Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 3, 1998 Report Share Posted December 3, 1998 While silence may be appropriate at times, it can also be a cop out. You're right and you words are timely. Thanks. Tamra Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 3, 1998 Report Share Posted December 3, 1998 On Thu, 3 Dec 1998, Charles Wikner wrote: > Charles Wikner <WIKNER > > On Thu, 03 Dec 1998 "T. Temple" <joklumji wrote: > > > The comment about not speaking the truth was not > > a comment that lies replace truth. On the contrary. Truth is most > > important; however, I often choose silence. > > Silence is not speaking the truth; lying is speaking something else. > > While silence may be appropriate at times, it can also be a cop out. > > Regards, Charles. > Namaste, Charles. On the contrary to what you said above, silence (of the thought) may be our natural state. I acknowledge that you are meaning by silence, the suppression of a vocal expression of the thought within. That may be a cop out. But consistent with the mission of our List, it is only appropriate to interpret "silence" in a different plane all together, as the absence of thoughts or absence of any perturbations. That silence, I think, is a desirable quality. Regards Gummuluru Murthy ------ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.