Hari: Om

[Guest guest]

Dear Tim,

 

you wrote

 

"You are certainly a stickler for correctness and exactness, Jaishankar."

 

I take this as a compliment.

 

you wrote

 

" Perhaps you will take a closer look and see that the words are nothing,

but the meaning behind them is everything. "

 

I think words are everything. I will explain why it is so.

 

you wrote

 

" If you would give up for one moment this extreme adherence to

"correctness" in all things, this attitude of an orthodox scholar, perhaps

you would be able to go beyond the mind, rather than remaining stuck in "I

am the mind." All your knowledge seems to be on the level of mental

knowledge, which is nice, but it will only get you to another round of

births and deaths.

 

Prayers to you as well, that you may see the reality, not the reflection. "

 

I think what you have said is condescending and I dont know how you can

assume that I am only seeing the reflection and not the reality. In the

tradition we say 'Para Hrdayam Apratyaksham' - 'The others mind is

imperceptible'. So only I know whether I see the reality or not. Similarly

only you know what you see. But we may infer to an extent from what each of

us write here about what we know.My inference is as follows:

 

I don't think we are differing in our understanding of the nature of the

reality and what is Moksha. I accept that Moksha is not an event as you have

posted today in your Q&A. In the tradition we give the example of the light

removing darkness at dawn when the sun rises. It is not a sudden event but a

gradual one and we cant even say when actually the light came and darkness

left.

Similarly I agree with you that for Moksha what is required is just removal

of ignorance. But from your postings I am not clear what is the means that

you are suggesting to remove ignorance. In the tradition we say any

ignorance whether of the self or of an object is removed only by a Pramana

Vyapara or the operation of a valid means of knowledge. I think this

statement is a valid statement. If you dont agree with this please tell me

why?

 

Now if we can accept that for the removal of ignorance the operation of a

valid means of knowledge is required then we have to identify which is that

valid means of knowledge in the case of Self-knowledge. If ignorance of

color or form is to be removed eyes are the means of knowledge and for

sounds it is ears etc. But the Self being not available for Perception and

other Perception based means of knowledge like inference we have to take

recourse to the Veda which is the valid menas of knowledge in these

cases.Now I think either you dont accept this or appreciate this fact well.

 

If you dont accept the Vedas as a valid means of knowledge then are you

suggesting any other means of knowledge? I just want to point out one thing

here. If I remember correctly you had said that you think that the words of

Vivekananda gave you clarity and you consider him your guru in absentia. Now

the words of Vivekananda wrt to the non-dual reality is nothing but the

words of the Veda. So If you have removed your ignorance using his words

then you have used the words of the Vedas for that purpose without

appreciating the fact that it is a valid means of knowledge.

 

Thats the difference between us. I have used the words of the Vedas through

my Guru to remove my ignorance and appreciate it as a means of knowledge.

Thats why words are everything for me. The means for removing ignorance are

the words of the Vedas, skillfully handled by a teacher who knows the

methodology to teach and who lives his life true to the vision of the vedas.

Words can be subjected to misinterpretations and thats why I am very careful

about the words I use and I also point out if somebody uses words in such a

way that it can be misinterpreted and if I think such misinterpretation can

mislead people.

 

Reg. my knowledge being on the mental level I want to know in which 'level'

your knowledge is in? I have already discussed in detail that all knowledge

which destroys ignorance, is only mental and if you have anything to

disagree there please point out.

 

Finally, I think you have an insight and in your enthusiasism to share your

insight after many years of hardships you are making certain blanket

statements (Which may be true from your standpoint) which may do much harm

to people in general. I think the fact that you did'nt have a 'living Guru '

to guide you shows up here. A Guru not only gives us this self knowledge but

also so much more which you can appreciate only if you have one.

 

Hari: Om,

 

with love and prayers,

 

Jaishankar.