world/mind

[Guest guest]

dear friends,

i agree with jayji,we are nobody to judge spiritual luminaries

but i also feel that if we don't apply our intellects and utmost efforts to

their teachings in an 'objective' manner we are actually doing them a great

disservice esp.sw.v. But one thing is true,if there is any fault it is in

our understanding never in their explanation.we must approach all topics

that concern them with utmost reverence.

 

if i have understood correctly,shri.kalyankumar is stating the vedantic

position:

"the 'world' is undefinable as it is."

a similar point arose in greg,dan and my discussions a few days ago(the

nature of the mind),i.e.,:

if the 'x' is unknown and undefinable,then how do we know that there is an

(external) 'x' at all?

if i am correct, vedanta says there is externality.why does vedanta insist

on such an external stimulus ,without which it seems to be very similar to

vijnanavada?

 

i write below my thoughts on swamiji's note,i was provided valuable leads by

shri. kalyankumar's post:

 

My nerves act on my brain-the brain sends back a reaction which,on the

mental side,is this world.

Something-x-acts on the brain through the nerves,the reaction is this world.

>>this part seems ok

 

Why not the x be also in the body-why outside?

Because we find the 'already created outside'world(as the result of a

previous reaction of the brain) acts on us calling on a further reaction.

Thus inside becomes outside and creates another action,which interior action

created another reaction,which again becomes outside and again acts inside.

>>here swamiji raises the above point of externality and also:how do we know

>>there is an x?it seems that swamiji is saying that there is an "original

>>x" which sets off an inside-outside series in the brain/mind(just as

>>avidya is an^adi,the series is also an^adi)so x is unknown as long as we

>>are trapped in the action-reaction series,but still there must have been

>>an "original x"(which is outside/beyond the series) which set off the

>>series and which is the basis of the series.

 

here i would like to draw an analogy with the foll. quote from raja-yoga of

swamiji:

"Take an infinite series A-B-A-B,etc..the question is-which is first,A or

B?if you take the series as A-B,you will say that A is first,but ,if you

take it as B-A,you will say that B is first.It depends upon the way we look

at it.Intelligence undergoes modification and becomes gross matter ,this

again merges into intelligence,and thus the process goes on....They both

indicate the same chain.Indian philosophy,however, goes beyond both

intelligence and matter ,and finds a Purusha ,or Self,which is beyond

intelligence ,of which intelligence is but the borrowed light."

if i may correlate, in our series; taken as inside-outside ,it becomes

idealism and taken as outside-inside,it becomes realism.

but the 'x'--brahman,the thing in itself,the noumenon is beyond both.

 

The only way of reconciling idealism and realism is to hold that one brain

can be affected by the 'world' created as reaction by another brain from

inside,i.e.,the mixture x+mind which one brain throws out can affect

another,to which it's similarly external.

Therefore as soon as we come within the influence of this hypnotic circle,or

influence,created by hundreds of preceding brains we begin to feel this

world as they see it.

>>it seems swamiji is saying that different minds(which are all parts of

>>the cosmic mind/mahat)mutually influence each other and thus sustain and

>>propel the inside-outside series which we call the 'world'.

 

of course the above hypothesis has lots of loopholes and presupposses

lots of things- above all, an acceptance of sankhya-vedanta.

 

 

it seems vedanta insists on externality just to provide a concrete basis to

a sadhaka (since as long as he sees the world he must explain it too)

ultimately of course vedanta only claims nonduality is.

dan,it seems we are once again back to the old thing--transcending all

ideas!!

jayji has spoken of modern physics,i fully agree.

what 'appears'to us as the 'world' of names and forms(i.e.,subject--bodymind

complex and object--matter/energy) and seems to be finite,relative and

differentiated to us--though empirically valid;upon

analysis,investigation:melts away and indicates an undescribable beyond

which is in fact the ultimate reality--nondual,infinite and absolute.

i hope members will forgive any mistakes in this rather lengthy

post.--devendra.

[Guest guest]

Devendra Vyas wrote:

>

> dear friends,

> i agree with jayji,we are nobody to judge spiritual luminaries

> but i also feel that if we don't apply our intellects and utmost efforts to

> their teachings in an 'objective' manner we are actually doing them a great

> disservice esp.sw.v. But one thing is true,if there is any fault it is in

> our understanding never in their explanation.

 

 

 

Devendra Vyas wrote:

> i agree with jayji,we are nobody to judge spiritual luminaries

> but i also feel that if we don't apply our intellects and utmost efforts to

> their teachings in an 'objective' manner we are actually doing them a great

> disservice esp.sw.v. But one thing is true,if there is any fault it is in

> our understanding never in their explanation.

 

i disagree. it's common to automatically assume

that the observations made by a jnani are reliably

infallible. it should be borne in mind, that any

such observations made are in/of the relative plane;

that, although one who's 'awakened' has the full

wisdom of paramatman in the Heart, (s)he is yet

subject to the residual shortcomings lurking in

the antahkarana. as such, their psychological

advice, philosophical speculation, discourses on

dharma, ahimsa, sadhana, etc. aren't utterly beyond

error or contrradiction. a case in point, was the

marked differences of opinion of Bhagavan Ramana and

Seshadri Swami of Tiruvanammalai re the metaphysics

of vedanta. both were jnani-s. (knowing this, in

fact, would actually be helpful to the sadhaka, since

it delivers the insight that the nature of Reality

is *beyond* the strict, airtight realm of the logical

Mind; that not even a jnani possesses flawless logical

reign over the relative plane. indeed there can be

no logical reign thereof in the first place...)

 

there's a point reached where the recognition is

had that coming to terms with the Absolute is quite

literally the easiest thing in the world. no effort

whatsoever is needed. in fact, effort blocks its

natural unfoldment. it's simply *automatically*

there, once the dross is cleared away. not so with

the world itself. coming to terms with the world--

insofar as grappling with its problems unique to

individuals and the unlimited conditions that

manifest--is, at times, the most *difficult* thing

in the world! hahaha! (pun intended, albeit so

accidentally made..)

 

regarding the discussion on inside/outside and what

came first--the classic argument of what follows what,

perception or creation, it seems most really have an

understanding but there is also significant confusion.

 

to my understanding [of what vedantic metaphysics is

propounding], the individual Mind is drawn from, or a

product of, the mahamahat (universal Mind of Isvara).

as such, the nature of Life (jagat) is at once within

*and* without, inside and outside. the inside (being

a product of the mahamahat) has simultaneously created

the entirety of the outside (the manifest world).

thus, "it's all in the Mind."

 

namaste

[Guest guest]

-

f. maiello <egodust

<advaitin >

Friday, November 26, 1999 6:59 PM

Re: world/mind

 

> "f. maiello" <egodust

 

> regarding the discussion on inside/outside and what

> came first--the classic argument of what follows what,

> perception or creation, it seems most really have an

> understanding but there is also significant confusion.

 

( parts of the original message are deleted )

 

Namaste,

I found the above passage very thought provoking. In this problem of "inside

and outside" it is only the relation between the two which "seems" to be the

truth and I might hasten to add that the relation is never the entire truth.

Here is an analogy.

 

The law of gravity makes no apple fall

Yet no apple went skyward in its fall

Laws make no phenomena and phenomena are not limited to law

But dont you agree that there is a state without space where there is no

gravity, no fall, no going up nor coming down?

Gravity was never created, it is always there and never "really" there. This

I think is the "significant confusion".

 

pranams

Vijayakumar

>

> > Discussion of the True Meaning of Sankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy

focusing on non-duality between mind and matter. Searchable List Archives

are available at: http://www.eScribe.com/culture/advaitin/ Contact Email

Address: advaitins

>