Is it correct?

November 15, 1999

Om.

I might sound a bit aggressive in this mail. But, I thought it might help

some people see through certain fallacies. I am taking up certain views

expressed by Tim in last couple of days for discussion here. I mean no

offense but since he has been forcefully presenting his viewpoint, I thought

it is not wrong on my part to express my disagreement with his viewpoints in

my own way.

This is Tim's reply to jaishankarji's clarification on Hari Om and Harihi

Om.

--------

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

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

the meaning behind them is everything. 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."

--

This is in an extremely bad taste and smells full of ignorance. Suppose

someone said 1+1=3 and I correct him, saying 1+1=2, our friend Tim would

have gleemed and told me 'You are looking at correctness. When there is

only 1 reality and no 2nd, 1+1 itself does not make sense. How can one say

it 2 or 3? May god give you realisation...etc.,etc.,' He seems to be

mixing up advaita in everything. If Jaishankar says Hari Om is not correct

and Harihi Om is correct and someone finds use of it, so be it. Advaita

will not make Hari Om correct and 1+1=4. [shankara says at one place 'Even

if thousands of vedas say so, still a pot will not become a mat'. We accept

the praamaanyam(validity as a means of knowledge) of veda only because it

does not CONTRADICT our other sensory data but gives something MORE and

BEYOND those senses (which cannot be dismissed based on other sensory

inputs).] Anyway, correcting 'Hari Om' does not imply that someone 'is

stuck in "I am the mind"', 'is unable to go beyond the mind', 'is having

only mental knowledge','will get into another round of births and

deaths','sees only reflection' etc., etc., Way too many conclusions based

on absolutely NOTHING. I wonder who is really stuck!

--

In one article on Nov 10, Ram wrote

"What a beautiful explanation! Your convincing viewpoint confirms that if we

focus our mind, we can always find unity in the diversity of thoughts and

ideas."

This is a general statement praising some presentation. But, Tim has his

own views on it :

'Yes, or if we realize that "words are just a mode of mind acting on mind,"

and know enough to go beyond the mind to the heart of compassion. All

beliefs are of the mind, all traditions are of the mind and are actually a

form of clinging to the unreal. If we can see that, traditions become less

important, and realizing who we really are takes primary importance.'

I just don't understand what was the need to write such a thing here. Is

there some kind of compulsion of oppose anything and everything? Just

because there is a 'reality', should one not even make ordinary statements

in life?

--

Tim wrote in an article yesterday:

--------

There is a body here; there is a mind here. Neither of them are I. There

is no identification with these. They exist temporarily, and will pass away

with the passing of clock time. The body has needs according to its nature,

such as food, riddance of waste, etc. The mind has needs according to its

nature, such as to think and analyze, etc. But these things exist entirely

independent of the reality.

--------

Now, are we not talking of two realities here? Two INDEPENDENT realities?

One what Tim calls 'reality' and the other 'reality' comprising the mind,

body etc., etc., which are not 'I'.[whether it is temporary or not, I still

get affected by it. I do get affected by temporary pain and pleasure, and

temporaryness itself cannot make it unreal, sir!] What is the 'advaita'

being proposed here? Knowledge that 'I AM CONSCIOUSNESS' and 'I AM OTHER

THAN BODY, MIND etc.,' can be arrived at inferentially(still my association

with body and mind is not explainable). But, that is not 'ADVAITA' and that

is definitely not where shastra stops. To understand that all that is seen

as 'other than I' is also only 'I', is why we need SHASTRA PRAMAANA and

there is no other MEANS. One who dismisses SHASTRA without even seeing what

it says and assuming that one already knows what is to be known, is the

BIGGEST of the LOOSERS, since he has already shut his mind to what could

POSSIBLY be the ONLY MEANS OF KNOWING.

--------

At one place, Tim says 'Brahman is the only "requirement" to know Brahman'

[Ref: 'Re: regards the discussion on gurus' dated web 10 Nov].

I ask this question: to know anything, is 'mind' not required and is knower

not required? For any knowledge to take place, there should be a knower,

'to be known', and means of knowing ie., subject, object, and instrument of

knowing. How can one make a sweeping statement that to know 'some'thing

only 'that' thing is required?

After talking about the nature of Brahman as eternal, beyond causality,

beyond everything etc., how can one even talk of knowing it? Knowing is

within time, causality etc., Let alone the point whether guru is required

or not, let us first see if such a knowledge as a reality is a possibility.

If this KNOWLEDGE of Brahman has to be a REALITY, it is NEVER possible. The

KNOWLEDGE itself is only within the causation and is only as real as the

IGNORANCE. So, to say that this knowledge takes place within the mind does

not take anything away from the 'nature' of brahman. Brahman being beyond

causality does not rule out the possibility of its knowledge taking place in

mind especially if mind is being dismissed by the knowledge.

The point is, EVERYONE RECOGNIZES THE NEED TO KNOW BRAHMAN and that is the

VERY REASON FOR THIS FORUM. It is a fact that knowing takes place within

the realm of mind. But the KNOWLEDGE in this case is of DIFFERENT NATURE.

The knowledge shows that the knower, known and the knowledge ARE ONE and THE

SAME. To understand how this KNOWLEDGE TAKES PLACE one HAS to KNOW and

there is no other way.

--------

In Ref: 'Re: regards the discussion on gurus' dated web 10 Nov, Tim observes

:

"Everything is evolving back toward the One. Ignorance is cast of slowly,

lifetime after lifetime, with or without "Guru." Eventually, everything

will be back to the Source."

What kind of advaitam are we talking about here? What is this evolution

towards Oneness, if the 'Oneness'(Brahman) is already beyond causation,

time, growth, changes etc., etc., as observed by Tim few lines before? What

is this point about many lifetimes? He seems to accept a evolution towards

oneness, slow casting off of ignorance, many lifetimes, experiences leading

towards realisation and what not. But, a living guru is unacceptable and a

'means of knowledge' as a necessity is totally unacceptable. Why sir?

Looks like time, effort etc., can remove ignorance (which I don't understand

how, anyway. ignorance can be removed only by knowledge, in my

understanding) but a 'valid means of knowledge' doesn't seem any necessity

at all.

--------

In the same article, the following observation is also made by Tim:

"There's a lot of adherence to tradition and traditional wisdom here on this

list. I can respect that, until it crosses the point of "my own" experience

(not my own opinion, but my own *experience*). After it crosses that point,

I have to say that I cannot agree or recommend that tradition or traditional

wisdom anymore, whatever it may be. "

For some unknown reason, the word 'tradition' seems to put off people. The

words like 'shastra','veda','tradition','pundit','sampradaya' etc., seems to

be anathema to many, especially the modern seekers. We need not accept a

viewpoint JUST BECAUSE it is TRADITIONAL, but at the same time, let us be

OBJECTIVE while seeing what TRADITION says also. Also, we are not talking

about a 'traditional wisdom' in the usual sense of the term. Again, it is

not *respect* that we expect for the tradition from anyone, we only expect

*objectivity* in approach. "my own" *experience* does not give me any new

knowledge. ONE can only make CONCLUSIONS based on one's experience which

are based on the 'SOCIETAL and SOCIAL CONDITIONINGS' to use Tim's own words.

If one's own *experience* is going to give knowledge one will gain a new

knowledge each day, to be negated the next day. As long as my experience

does not CONTRADICT what SHASTRA says, I should have no problem in being

objective to what it says. The worldly experience does not CONTRADICT

SHASTRA because the very 'domain' of SHASTRA is explained as 'pratyakshena

anumityo vaa yasya upayaha na vindate that vindathi vedena thasmaath vedasya

vedatha(manu smrithi)' (veda shows things which are not knowable by direct

sensory observation and inference). Worldly experience can neither give nor

contradict vedic knowledge and VICEVERSA since the 'DOMAINS' are entirely

different between the two. If one UNDERSTANDS this point, I would say 99%

of the confusion would be resolved.

--------

Tim wrote on 11 Nov, under subject "Ram/Re: Multi-Path or Four Path

Confusion"

"Let nothing master us, for we are Brahman, Eternal and Timeless, and there

is nothing else but That."

If we are BRAHMAN already which cannot be mastered (since there is nothing

else to master it), why do we have to 'LET NOTHING MASTER US'? Is Tim

suggesting our MAKING OURSELVES BRAHMAN through some PROCESS/METHOD?

Another one in the same mail: "Let us not wait until on the deathbed to know

Unity". Okay, sir, we don't want to! But, can you suggest how we can know

it now?

--------

Tim says on 11 Nov in Sub. My Story

"At first I thought the path of Jnana was the only path for me, as I have a

powerful intellect. But lately I've discovered that jnana alone is not

enough. Without the heart, there is death from intellectual dryness.

Without selflessness and unconditional love, the mind remains in an ignorant

state. So now I have thrown selfishness to the wind, and care little for my

own welfare."

This shows that he is still trying out couple of things and in the process

of search. But, in an earlier mail, he had said about the advaitic

knowledge, "I gained it without a Guru. If I can do so, others can as

well." Well.....

--------

Gurucharana pankaha

Kalyan

November 15, 1999

dear list,

shri. kalyankumar is making a very valid point.indeed if some

feel they are above all duality and have had their 'realization' why are

they even bothering to post to lists since even such lists are within

maya!!!.even i had in a post some days back,asked gently that members should

learn to distinguish between the absolute and the relative viewpoints, both

of which are valid in their places:else, we get caught up in much needless

wrangling.advaita as an intellectual pursuit is very easy,but even to become

a fit aspirant of advaita requires tremendous patience,perseverance and

dispassion and may take a few births!!all genuine sadhakas know this fact

and never indulge in 'time waste'.as for debate;all things are

debatable,even god is debatable,the validity of EVERYTHING is debatable,it

is for us to draw the line between progressive,sensible debates and

ego-clashes.

i would request all members to pay heed to the foll. thumbrule:

"THERE IS NO POINT IN TALKING LIKE A PARAMHANSA BEFORE ACTUALLY BECOMING