That it is Brahaman!

[Guest guest]

YOU are the Atman. Atman is Brahman.

>Brahman is REAL and Brahman is also the QUESTION.

If you say Brahman is real, that means that you know Brahman. But it

cannot be so because you've said that Brahman is the question. Since

Brahman is a question and you don't know it, how can you say it's real?

>All answer to any question is nothing but thoughts.

Ofcouse, the question which is a thought, can only be answered by

another thought.

>Thoughts are transient and are UNREAL.

Thoughts are transient - accepted. But if you say they are unreal, that

means you've a base for that claim - the Real. But prior to this you've

said that you don't know the Real. So how can you say that thoughts are

unreal? They are relatively real enough in our transient life.

>An explanation to any thought is another thought and is also unreal!

Again, it's only relatively unreal - because the base of comparison

itself is unreal.

>The goal of Vedic scriptures including the Upanishads and the Gita is

to

>guide us to discard the thought process.

Not so. It's not so easy to discard the thought process. Yoga might try

that. But Vedanta ignores it and concentrates on only the Real. So the

Goal is only Brahman.

>Karma, Bhakti and Jnana yogas stipulated in Gita are the greatest tools

to proceed our life without >indulging the mind in action.

How's that possible? Every tiny action in our body requires the mind.

Both bhakti and karma require the mind to function. Jnana as the

realized state maybe is beyond the mind. But as a sadhana is well within

the scope of the mind. Without the mind, how will you even know that

there's something called jnana?

>These three sadhanas serve as anti-lock brakes to the accelerating

mind. The energy for the accelerating >mind comes from sensual

perceptions and the sadhanas close the energy source. Thought coming

from the >accelerating mind is the greatest pitfall to experience the

REAL.

I agree.

>Real will remain as a question as long as the mind indulges in the

thought process energized by the >sensual perceptions!

But what if the mind doesn't indulge in sensual perceptions but is full

of interest in seeking knowledge of the Real?

>Whenever we try to explain REAL, we only elaborate how UNREAL we are!

All our explanations are >just thoughts arising from time to time.

Then why would the seers of the Upanishads or Krishna in the Gita do it?

Why did Ramana or Shankara do it?

>We do not want to admit our inability to establish the communication

channel between the REAL and >UNREAL! We do not want to believe that no

communication channel between REAL and UNREAL is >ever possible!

Ram, I think this is the wrong attitude. The mind must try and it's only

knowledge which will silence it. For the mind is nothing but a

reflection of the Atman and when the mind penetrates deep inside itself,

it'll extinguish itself in the Atman.

>When we experience the REAL,

Yes, when we've indeed experienced it, we can talk about the rest.

 

The point I'm trying to make is simple. Saying that everything is a

thought and so let's stop thinking is not going to solve anything. In

the first place you can't do it! The mind will keep going relentlessly

and if you try to suppress it you'll only wind up in an asylum. Krishna

or the Buddha both encourage you to DIVERT your thoughts to the Real

from the unreal. You'll have to find out the truth about the mind and

finally transcend it. For it's only from the false I that one can

descend to the true I. The only result of non-thinking (if it's even

possible) is a non-thinking false I. You have to strive to realize the

limits of the mind and finally subside in it's source, which is

yourself.