Jay/Mind-Body Problem

[Guest guest]

>"Vivekananda Centre" <vivekananda

 

>Let me say that when we make comments about how we interpret what a

>self-realised person has said or meant to say this should be done with

>utmost care and humility. This is not some form of whimpishness or

>sentimentality but comes from clear realisation that we are dealing with a

>subject where 'first hand experience of spirituality' is essential to really

>understand what is involved. I have yet to come across any member on this or

>other lists who claims 'Spirituality first hand'. Hence need for humility if

>we are sincere about spirituality.

 

Hi Jay,

 

It's always good to be humble, realized or not. For those who believe in

attainments, it's good not to claim anything about one's spiritual

attainments, realized or not. It's good not to ponder or judge others'

attainments, based on what they say or don't say.

 

This actually leaves us free to inquire about the issues themselves,

because we're not making any connections that anyone's concepts on an issue

represent a state or degree of attainment. If it's nonsense, it's not

nonsense just because I said it, and if it makes sense, it's not just

because Sw V said it. Didn't Sw V say to test the Vedantic teachings

according to reason or our experience? A similar admonition is often

attributed to the Buddha...

>I have made a lifetime study of Swami Vivekananda's teachings and yet take

>great deal of care when I try and put my own interpretation of what he has

>said. Until I feel certain that I really "know first hand" what he is

>talking about - I am very cautious.

 

I see that and respect that!

>IMHO Swami Vivekananda has made the following assertions about "inside and

>outside" - problem. (Take care - this is my understanding of what he has

>said):-

>What we call inside and what we call as outside is an arbitrary division -

>where does inside stop and outside begin? Can we say material universe with

>all the elementary particles - quarks and such are outside and what we call

>our thought process is inside?

>Check out our Modern Physics - the concepts of elementary particles

 

Did Sw V talk about these things?

>Exactly where does the physical

>elementary particle exist? Turning this the other way - every thought

>process corresponds to an activity in the brain. There is an important cause

>and effect relationship between every thought against some activity in the

>brain. You cannot separate them. Hence what we call external (brain and its

>activities) and what we call internal (thought processes) are causally

>connected.

 

Yes, this explanation conforms to the passage that Devendra quoted of Sw V's.

 

Regards,

 

--Greg