Guest guest Posted January 29, 1999 Report Share Posted January 29, 1999 On Thu, 28 Jan 1999, nanda chandran wrote: > "nanda chandran" <vpcnk > > Gmurthy writes : > > >Yes, there is no argument about it. Mind alone is the cause for bondage > or > >liberation. We are as close or as far away from the "boundary" as our > mind > >tells. > > Who is the we? And please define “mind”. How can you who’re the > changeless eternal absolute be “told” something by the mind? > > >Can we not also ascribe that mind alone is the cause for thinking that > we > >have free-will or that we do not have free-will? I am sure you will > agree > >with this. > > Here you say that the mind thinks that it has free will? So where were > you at that time? And how is it that then you “think” that you’ve free > will? > > >My argument in this series of posts is: free-will is an effect, just > like > > Effect of what? When we are discussing whether we have free will, the > free will in question is ours. So when free will is related to you, how > can the cause be other than you? If the cause was other than you, then > how would you have free will? But again if you’re a cause, which implies > change, you cannot be eternal. > > >destiny is. That is what I stated in my first post. The root cause for > all > >this (these effects) is ignorance, traceable to the beginning of avidyA > - > >anAdi - beginningless. > > Ignorance implies two things - 1. the subject which is ignorant and 2. > that of which the subject is ignorant. But we are the eternal absolute. > So how can Ignorance be attatched to us? > > [... some further analysis deleted. ] Namaste. I must say I have some difficulty following Shri Nanda Chandran's analysis of my post. My post (under reference) is set in the vyavahArika mode, where we do not have experiential knowledge of sameness of Brahman and Atman. We have intellectual knowledge of the sameness but not experiential knowledge. In that scenario, we still see the difference. If my post is viewed in that light, may be some of the objections which Shri Nanda raised may not be there? If my post is still considered not clear, I would be very glad to clarify. I like to touch on another point also. tat tvam asi. From my understanding, meaning of tat tvam asi is quite profound. Tvam is not what we see as ourselves. Tvam is the inner you. Dehendriya-manah-prANAhmkr^tibhyo vilakshaNah projghitAsheshha shhaDbhAvavikAra stvam padAbhidah Shri Shankara in vAkyavr^tti Totally distinct from the body, senses, mind, prANa, and ego is that which is the SELF; therefore it is absolutely free from the six modifications, which material things must naturally undergo. This Self is the indicative meaning of the term "thou" (tvam). In the same vAkyavr^tti, Shri Shankara describes tat also as eloquently, and then the identity of tat and tvam. Tat tvam asi is valid only in paramArtha. My post under reference is set entirely in vyavahArika mode. If there are any further objections in the light of these clarifications, I will be very glad to amplify what I have written. 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.