the mind does too see the Self

[Guest guest]

Greetings Madhava,

> > return something that *****atheists (like

> > myself)****** are bound to balk at initially.

> Are you! :-) :-)

 

As you know the word God has been

appropriated in the West by

Christian fundamentalist nutbars of the

type satirized on the Landover

Baptist site that I once referred you

to. This is a strong incentive

to avoid using it altogether but there

is of course no other word

in the English language which could

serve to refer to, say, Chapter 11

of the Gita.

 

Spinoza's problems with the word 'God'

are instructive. He maintained that

man's 'freedom, salvation or

blessedness' lies in the 'constant,

eternal

and unending love of God, or in God's

love for man' so he was clearly

a 'God-intoxicated man' (as one of the

German Romantics called him).

On the other hand since for him 'all

things follow from the necessity of the

divine nature' he naturally identified

God with the world (as in the formula

'the infinite and eternal being who is

God or Nature').

Now as far orthodox Christianity is

concerned this is probably even more

subversive than atheism for the reason

that a basic assumption in Christianity

is that

the world is a rotten place that needs

to be 'redeemed' by the Second Coming.

(So basic is this assumption that it

never occurs to most Christian atheists

to question it which is why they

are such a miserable bunch.) So

depending on who you listen to, Spinoza

is either a God-intoxicated

man or an atheist. Go figure.

 

In my own case, it took a long time to

understand how Spinoza's God was

*lovable*. I found that reading

the Gita --- taking the figure of

Krishna to be the personification of the

Self --- to be enormously helpful

here.

 

Regards,

 

Patrick

[Guest guest]

Greetings Patrick:

 

In Ramayana, there is a supporting evidence for the

claim, "all that is required is thinking on Me at all

times." Sri Hanuman in Ramayana considered the

greatest Bhakta (thinks about Rama all the time) of

Rama. Sita once questioned Sri Hanuman whether Ram

stays always in his heart? Hanuman just opened his

chest and demonstrated to Sita the presence of Ram in

his heart. This is a symbolic gesture to demonstrate

that Hanuman and Ram are inseparable! It should be

also pointed out that 'heart' does not represent the

physical heart but 'mind.' In Hindu tradition, Sri Ram

is always worshiped along with Hanuman! Also, the

worship of Sri Hanuman is considered equivalent to the

worship of Sri Ram.

 

regards,

 

Ram Chandran

 

 

--- Patrick Kenny <pkenny wrote:

> ........

> Chapter 8 where Krishna tells Arjuna

> that he is 'easy to obtain' (!); all

> that is required is 'thinking on Me at

> all times' (XIII.14), 'keeping mind

> (manas) and understanding (buddhi) fixed

> on me' (VIII.7). This is

> 'one-pointedness' of mind but not of the

> type that Anand refers to; rather it is

> a habit of referring all things to the

> idea of God which is known in the

> Christian tradition as the 'practice of

> the presence of God'.

[Guest guest]

Madhava K Turumella <madhava wrote:

"Madhava K Turumella" <madhava

 

 

-

Patrick Kenny <pkenny

> return something that *****atheists (like

> myself)****** are bound to balk at initially.

Are you! :-) :-)

>

> The mind's understanding of God changes

> as the practice of presence of God is

> engaged in (you just can't do it with

> and idea of God that you are not

> comfortable with) so that even if

> bhakti-yoga is nothing but idol worship

> to begin with it eventually ****ends up**** in

> the same place as the loftiest

> jnana-yoga:

 

Well said! How ever, I have a question. Where do we end-up? :-)

 

I remain yours,

Madhava

 

 

 

 

 

 

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/ To from the list, send

Email to <advaitin- > For other contact, Email to

<advaitins

 

Re: the question of Sri Madhavakumar, after the loftiest Jnan Marga, where do I

end? It is a reasonable question. There cannot be an endless evolution of an

individual, just as there can't be a stright line endlessly travelling.in

space. The straight line bends after sometime and completes the circle to oin

its own beginning. So too the individual whoevolves through Bhakti marga and

Jnana marga will complete his evolution and join the source. The ego which has

its source in the Supreme Self, commences it journey as the individual, makes

the progress until it passes through the path of devotion at the level of the

mind and travels through the Jnana marga at the level of the intellect,

transcends these two equipment of the individual and goes beyond towards the

Supreme and merges in It. The ego no more exists.It disappears into the vision

of the Supreme.

 

 

 

 

 

Talk to your friends online with Messenger.

 

 

[Guest guest]

Patrick,

 

You say that "the idea that the Self is accessible to the rational mind is

the key to my understanding of the Gita" and reference several slokas from

the Gita that refer to Krishna's telling Arjuna to 'keep his mind fixed on

Me' and thereby realise the Self.

 

I can appreciate the validity of this as an exercise in bhakti yoga.

Clearly if the emotional content of the mind (and discursive thought) is

completely purged

of all else but thoughts of the Lord, then the instrument is in optimum

condition for realisation of the truth. After all, it is the mind that gets

in the way of our realising this right here and now! However, this does not

seem to be saying that there is direct 'seeing' of the Self in any way.

 

One of the key aphorisms of advaita is the expression 'neti, neti', to

remind us constantly that whatever we perceive as being brahman is a

mistake. Any attribute that could be applied to the Self, by excluding the

opposite, would have to limit its nature. Since its nature is absolute,

this cannot be possible. Even the attribute saccidAnanda is really of the

'not this' form. By saying that the Self is 'reality' or 'truth' we are

really only acknowledging that it is not 'unreal' or 'false'. All speech

and thought about anything, by its nature, grounded in phenomenal

experience and logic, attributes one thing and excludes another. This

cannot be done of the Self, which has no such divisions. Surely, then, it

must follow that we cannot think about it or 'see the Self' in any way

through the medium of the mind?

 

Dennis