Guest guest Posted October 1, 1999 Report Share Posted October 1, 1999 namaste. What is the meaning of life? How do we answer this question? Who answers this question? Shall we let the ego answer it? Have the List-members given any thought to this question any time? I would not even try to put any answers to these questions but would seek answers or a good discussion on this topic from the learned members. Regards Gummuluru Murthy ------ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 2, 1999 Report Share Posted October 2, 1999 Gummuluru Murthy wrote: > > > namaste. > > What is the meaning of life? How do we answer this question? > Who answers this question? Shall we let the ego answer it? > Have the List-members given any thought to this question > any time? > > I would not even try to put any answers to these questions > but would seek answers or a good discussion on this topic > from the learned members. > namaste if 'meaning' had an absolute value then there would be [real] meaning in addressing the question of 'meaning.' :-) as such, 'meaning' can only exist in and through the relative plane. by definition, it cannot but collapse in the face of its cause. ....this is one view. (relative in itself!) om shaanthi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 2, 1999 Report Share Posted October 2, 1999 Namaste, Meaning of life? Supposition: To the individual souls (jeeva) there are as many different answers as their are souls. To the One Atman, the meaning of life is to know the Self. Jai Ma, Parvati Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 2, 1999 Report Share Posted October 2, 1999 namaste. My thinking on this is the following at the moment: Certainly, the meaning of life is different for different persons and even for the same person at different phases of his/her life. The meaning of life changes as we pass on the control of what or who defines this meaning from the ego to the viveka. As long as the ego defines this meaning, life's meaning is distinct and may include aspirations. As the viveka gradually takes control of life, the aspirations which were there before, loose their meaning. Life itself may loose its meaning because viveka dictates that life itself is unreal. Here, I am not calling viveka by the standard meaning of discrimination between what is real and what is unreal. I am calling viveka as that intelligence which descends on to the human (or which arises from inside) as the human begins to question: is this real?, is this real?. This intelligence (viveka) which arises in the human leads to the ultimate question: am I real? Looking at life with that intelligence, life itself will have no meaning. But, life itself has to be lived, neither as a burden nor as a source of pleasure, but as life itself. Art Gregory says "... Answer to this question is: the rest of our life... in thought, word and deed...". I think that is a very wise statement. As I interpret it, that is, "the rest of that jeeva's life as seen by that jeeva" (?) Regards Gummuluru Murthy ------ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 2, 1999 Report Share Posted October 2, 1999 Namaste, So the question becomes, NOT...What is the meaning of life?, But... Who or What is the Self? Jai Ma, Parvati Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 3, 1999 Report Share Posted October 3, 1999 On 10/2/99 at 12:34 AM Gummuluru Murthy wrote: > >namaste. > >What is the meaning of life? How do we answer this question? >Who answers this question? Shall we let the ego answer it? >Have the List-members given any thought to this question >any time? [...] To ask for the meaning of life is like asking a fish for the meaning of water; without it, the fish wouldn't exist and the question couldn't be posed or answered. There are religions, where the term Self is exchanged for the term Eternal Life; this indicates, there is only life and nothing exists "outside" of it. Jan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 3, 1999 Report Share Posted October 3, 1999 Namaste: Therefore, if we examine the new question, Who or What is the Self? possible answer... shrii shankara says in the aatmashhaTakaM manobuddhyaha.nkaarachittaani naahaM na cha shrotrajivhe na cha ghraaNanetre . na cha vyomabhuumiH na tejo na vaayuH chidaana.ndaruupaH shivo.ahaM shivo.aham.h I am not the intellect, ego, mind. Neither am I hearing, taste, smell, sight. Nor am I space, earth, light, air, field of consciousness. I am the pure consciousness of bliss. I am Shiva. I am Shiva. [shiva here means pure consciousness]. Jai Ma, Parvati Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 4, 1999 Report Share Posted October 4, 1999 On Sun, 3 Oct 1999 Parvatijai wrote: > Parvatijai > > Namaste: > > Therefore, if we examine the new question, Who or What is the Self? > > possible answer... > > shrii shankara says in the aatmashhaTakaM > > manobuddhyaha.nkaarachittaani naahaM > na cha shrotrajivhe na cha ghraaNanetre . > na cha vyomabhuumiH na tejo na vaayuH > chidaana.ndaruupaH shivo.ahaM shivo.aham.h > > > I am not the intellect, ego, mind. Neither am I hearing, taste, smell, sight. > Nor am I space, earth, > light, air, field of consciousness. I am the pure consciousness of bliss. I > am Shiva. I am Shiva. > > [shiva here means pure consciousness]. > > Jai Ma, > Parvati > namaste. Rather than the question "What is the SELF?", may be the question should be "What is the SELF not?". Is the SELF anything which we know? Obviously not. Shri Shankara's verse which was quoted also says that the SELF is not any of what we know. Like the Br^hadAraNyaka upanishad's neti, neti, not this, not this, the answer to the question "What is the SELF?" will be a limited one and the answer can only be given in a negative way. I have an addendum to the question and it deals with neti, neti of Br^hadAraNyaka upanishad. The advaita interpretation, which is the correct one, is the only way SELF can be described is as not this, not this, na iti, na iti. I was discussing this with a swamiji (of visishTAdvaitin belief) a year ago and his interpretation of neti, neti is not *only* this, not *only* this; that is, the Brahman, the SELF is all inclusive. There is a subtle but distinct difference in the two interpretations. The visishtAdvaitin swamiji's interpretation is sarvam vishNumayam, sarvam brahmamayam, all is Brahman. In advaita, what we see, infer is all a superposition, the substratum being undescribable. Yet, we see in some advaitic discussions, we hear the logic that the world, the jagat is Brahman. So, is the jagat Brahman or a superposition ? The implications are immense. Regards Gummuluru Murthy ------ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 4, 1999 Report Share Posted October 4, 1999 On 10/4/99 at 5:26 PM Gummuluru Murthy wrote: [...] >I have an addendum to the question and it deals with neti, neti of >Br^hadAraNyaka upanishad. The advaita interpretation, which is the >correct one, is the only way SELF can be described is as not this, >not this, na iti, na iti. I was discussing this with a swamiji >(of visishTAdvaitin belief) a year ago and his interpretation of >neti, neti is not *only* this, not *only* this; that is, the Brahman, >the SELF is all inclusive. There is a subtle but distinct difference >in the two interpretations. The visishtAdvaitin swamiji's interpretation >is sarvam vishNumayam, sarvam brahmamayam, all is Brahman. In advaita, >what we see, infer is all a superposition, the substratum being >undescribable. Yet, we see in some advaitic discussions, we hear the >logic that the world, the jagat is Brahman. So, is the jagat Brahman or >a superposition ? The implications are immense. > >Regards >Gummuluru Murthy I cannot see the two views as different interpretations at all; both views have an experiential basis. The Advaita interpretation is based on nirvikalpa samadhi. Nirvikalpa samadhi cannot be called an experience; the absence of everything known to man and yet, not "nothing". Prior to going into nirvikalpa samadhi, some will notice, "something", being one's "essence", starts to pervade everything, giving a notion like "I am the all, pervading all that exists". This is reason enough for the interpretation there is nothing but Self, suggesting inclusiveness. So I wonder, hoe immense the implications of the difference between the two interpretations really can be, as in principle the experiential basis of both interpretations can be "discovered" at one "go" Jan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 4, 1999 Report Share Posted October 4, 1999 Gummuluru Murthy has rightly referred to the advaitic interpretation of the Self by the process of negation. This process of negation uses the concept of 'neti' two times. At every opportunity of explaining this the Upanishads use the word 'neti' two times. This is highly meaningful as the pancadaSi of VidyAraNya points out. Actually there are two negations - though the viSishTAdvaitins think the double use of neti is for emphasis. The first negation is a real negation that helps one transcend the mAyA which veils the Absolute and projects this universe. To negate the universe is therefore to see brahman in everything and everywhere. In other words we have to 'see' brahman without its adjunct, mAyA. The second negation, however, is a different category of negation and is perhaps more difficult. It negates the adjuncts of the Self. In other words it transcends the five sheaths, which 'cover' the inner Self. This negation is important in comprehending the Self as satyam, jnAnam, anantam. For an elaboration along these lines, one may see the following webpage and its succeeding pages: http://www.geocities.com/profvk/gohitvip/34.html It bears the title: Beach 3: Focus on Three Qualities of God Wave 4: The Absolute As It is. ===== Prof. V. Krishnamurthy The URL of my website has been simplified as http://www.geocities.com/profvk/ You can access both my books from there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 5, 1999 Report Share Posted October 5, 1999 On Mon, 4 Oct 1999, Jan Barendrecht wrote: > "Jan Barendrecht" <janb > > On 10/4/99 at 5:26 PM Gummuluru Murthy wrote: > > [...] > >I have an addendum to the question and it deals with neti, > neti of > >Br^hadAraNyaka upanishad. The advaita interpretation, which > is the > >correct one, is the only way SELF can be described is as not > this, > >not this, na iti, na iti. I was discussing this with a > swamiji > >(of visishTAdvaitin belief) a year ago and his interpretation > of > >neti, neti is not *only* this, not *only* this; that is, the > Brahman, > >the SELF is all inclusive. There is a subtle but distinct > difference > >in the two interpretations. The visishtAdvaitin swamiji's > interpretation > >is sarvam vishNumayam, sarvam brahmamayam, all is Brahman. In > advaita, > >what we see, infer is all a superposition, the substratum > being > >undescribable. Yet, we see in some advaitic discussions, we > hear the > >logic that the world, the jagat is Brahman. So, is the jagat > Brahman or > >a superposition ? The implications are immense. > > > >Regards > >Gummuluru Murthy > > I cannot see the two views as different interpretations at > all; both views have an experiential basis. The Advaita > interpretation is based on nirvikalpa samadhi. Nirvikalpa > samadhi cannot be called an experience; the absence of > everything known to man and yet, not "nothing". Prior to going > into nirvikalpa samadhi, some will notice, "something", being > one's "essence", starts to pervade everything, giving a notion > like "I am the all, pervading all that exists". This is reason > enough for the interpretation there is nothing but Self, > suggesting inclusiveness. So I wonder, hoe immense the > implications of the difference between the two interpretations > really can be, as in principle the experiential basis of both > interpretations can be "discovered" at one "go" > > Jan > namaste. The difference I see is the following. [if this interpretation is incorrect, I hope the members would correct me. My special praNAms to our newest member Swamini Sharadapriyananda. She may recall that she was a special guest in our home in St. John's, Newfoundland, Canada more than twenty years ago.] The advaita interpretation (of neti, neti) is: Brahman is not this, not this, neti, neti. We keep on recognizing the superimpositions and say Brahman is not that, but the substratum to that. We keep on taking away all the superimpositions and we will have Consciousness as the only reality. Looking at the AtmAshhTakam verse of Shri Shankara, Shri Shankara says that I am not the intellect, not the sense organs etc. He says that I am Brahman, that Consciousness behind the intellect, the sense organs. It is true that the intellect, the sense organs etc do not function and exist without Atman and that jeeva is Atman with all the adjuncts. Similarly, jagat does not have independent existence apart from Brahman. Yet, jagat is only a superimposition. Let us take BG 9.4. Lord Krishna, the Consciousness says: they (the finite) are all in Me (the infinite). But I am not in any of them. (Please also see my separate post on BG 9.4, coming up shortly). If we accept the visishTAdvaitin interpretation, not *only* this, not *only* this, the intellect is Brahman, the sense organs are Brahman. They are no longer a superimposition. This, in my view, contradicts Shri Shankara's AtmAshTakam verse(s), and even Bg 9.4. How can this body, this intellect, this jagat be Brahman? The superimposition cannot be Brahman. It is true the superimposition does not have independent existence apart from the substratum, yet, the superimposition and substratum cannot be the same. That, as I understand, is the essence of BG 9.4. The superimposition will be seen as mithyA as we know the truth. In that way, I see difference between the two interpretations. 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.