Robert

[Guest guest]

Robert, you raise some interesting points although I have not followed this

conversation much. The dichotomy you suggested in an earlier post about

whether consciousness is derived from the physical or the physical from

consciousness appears to be quite clear. Perhaps the framing of the

dichotomy in this manner assumes a third element "the connecting link"

between "consciousness" and the "physical". Without the connecting link, it

would be difficult to speak of "derivation" of consciousness from the

physical or "derivation" of the physical from consciousness, unless we

concluded that all three (consciousness, the physical world, the connecting

link between them) are in fact simply manifestations of Absolute

consciousness.

 

Along parallel lines, the practical methodology of Advaita Vedanta suggests

reflecting on the duality of the observer and the observed and to continue

distinguishing between Real and the Unreal through a process of neti, neti,

neti, etc. In this approach, the connecting link between the observer and

observed can be thought of as the sense "I" that distinguishes itself from

the "other." When this connecting link disappears the Observer and the

Observed are seen to be identical.

 

Now Robert, as you point out, you are not able to frame exactly what you are

asking for. This is easy to understand. You seem to say that you wish you

had a belief in Advaita like many of the other learned members of this list.

On the other hand, being extremely bright and intelligent, you seem to sense

that a mere belief in Advaita (or in anything for that matter) can only take

you so far. And how long can we cover up our sense of anxiety with forced

beliefs. Devotional faith is different and rises spontaneously. But if you

don't have it yet, you don't have it. That is all. No problem. Your

suffering itself might bring you to that point. It is possible. And we are

all suffering Robert, in one way or another, learned or not, Advaitins or

not, etc. So you have a lot of company. The whole world is with you.

 

It seems Robert that the more fundamental issue is that we do not know who

we are or where we are and our perceptions, moods, and mental states, are

constantly changing.

 

Now may I ask you something? What is your deepest truth Robert? Or what is

the deepest truth that you truly know. If you can make that explicit, that

will be a good starting point.

 

This is a long post for me Robert. I wrote it because I sense your

earnestness. I am not much into philosophy although I enjoy reading the

eloquence of others. My interest is in the Reality of Our True Nature and

the methodology to investigate that without any avoidance. I have an

absolute commitment to the Truth because I know that Truth to be our own

Reality. If our questions come from an honest space, we can expect direct

and clear answers.

 

Love

Harsha

[Guest guest]

 

Harsha <harsha-hkl

[...]

>Now may I ask you something? What is your deepest truth Robert? Or what is

>the deepest truth that you truly know. If you can make that explicit, that

>will be a good starting point.

>

>This is a long post for me Robert. I wrote it because I sense your

>earnestness. I am not much into philosophy although I enjoy reading the

>eloquence of others. My interest is in the Reality of Our True Nature and

>the methodology to investigate that without any avoidance. I have an

>absolute commitment to the Truth because I know that Truth to be our own

>Reality. If our questions come from an honest space, we can expect direct

>and clear answers.

 

I resonate with every word of your very eloquent post, and the funny thing

is that the sort of relaxed, flexible truth seeking that you exhibit

probably does more to 'make it real' for me than anything could at this

point. And I think you probably could scour the earth without finding any

Christian, Muslim, or Jewish groups that compare in this regard. I guess

that's one aspect of satsang, even if in this case only in the cyber sense.

 

In answer to your question, I'm not sure I have any deepest truth, other

than a commitment to intellectual integrity. Whether it pertains to

ourselves, our personalities, our health, or whatever, it's always better to

know the truth as best we can, and deal with it. If we attempt to evade or

deny some aspect of reality, it's bound to catch up with us eventually,

often in the form of a shock or nasty surprise. So it's much better to

follow the truth relentlessly in the first instance, wherever it may lead.

In other words, we adapt ourselves to reality rather than making a futile

attempt at the opposite. I know it sounds a little trite to say; after all,

who is against truth? But I think we all know that actually doing it takes a

great deal of energy.

 

Robert.

[Guest guest]

Dear Robert,

Your questions and doubts are penetrating.

The commitment to intellectual integrity is noble. But we can ask these

fundamental questions:

what is the intellect? my intellect or someone else's intellect or some

absolute intellect?

What is the integrity referenced to? to my knowledge, to others' knowledge

or some absolute knowledge?

If the intellect is rational what is the basis of this rationality --

subjective experience, objective observation, or

something else?

Then comes the basic question:

Can we go from objective reality to objective absoluteness which dissolves the

subjective reality or vice versa?

 

I would like to emphasize that these questions are not to generate arguments but

to generate clarity.

-- Vis

-----------------

 

Robert Watson wrote:

> In answer to your question, I'm not sure I have any deepest truth, other

> than a commitment to intellectual integrity. Whether it pertains to

> ourselves, our personalities, our health, or whatever, it's always better to

> know the truth as best we can, and deal with it.

>

> Robert.

>

[Guest guest]

Greetings Robert:

 

Thanks for sharing your thoughts on the pursuit of

Truth relentlessly. Pursuit of Truth and Pursuit of

Happiness are quite similar. The pursuit of happiness

is like pursuing for a butter fly; we fail to catch it

if we pursue but it may sit right on us if we sit

quiet!

 

The issue of 'intellectual integrity' is a complex

entitity amenable according to one's desires.

 

For some, intellectual integrity is a mean to refuse

beliefs that do not meet their crieria for acceptance.

The flaw in this approach is that the criteria for

acceptance is created with a limited knowledge. This

methodology will work provided the knowledge is

absolute but knowledge is always relative!

 

The saints of seers of Upanishads are fully aware of

the importance of maintaining the intellectual

integrity and the limitations of logic based on

relative knowledge. In Vedanta, absolute knowledge is

known as 'paravidya' and relative knowledge is called

the 'aparavidya.' The paravidya is also known as

Brahmavidya. According to our seers, the Ultimate

Reality can be experienced only through Brahmavidya.

We can attain the Brahmavidya through Self-Enquiry or

becoming aware of "who am I?"

 

Fundamentally, belief is an important ingredient in

the pursuit of Truth. We have believe in ourselves

that we can experience the Ultimate Reality through

Self-enquiry. If Ramanamaharishi says that we can

experience the TRUTH, it is important that believe him

and listen to him what he has to say. Let me give an

example: Let us suppose that we all live in a dark

cave from our birth. One day, one of us claim that

he/she has seen the 'light' outside. Now, how do we

verify this experience. The one and only way is to

see the 'light' ourselves by going outside. This is

beyond logic and beyond intellectual integrity. There

is no for us to understand what is 'light' and by no

means that person who saw the 'light' will be able to

explain. It is beyond logic which is based on our

limited knowledge. When we have to experience for

which we have no prior knowledge, we have go beyond

our limited intellect. Interestingly, intellectual

integrity can be gained by giving up our intellectual

integrity!

 

I know my limitations and it is quite possible to find

logical flaws. But statements of the seers of the

Upanishads and saints such as Shankara and

Ramanamaharishi are free from logical flaws. Our

limited knowledge is quite capable to find flaws and

it only demonstrates that we are limited!

 

Ram Chandran

 

 

 

--- Robert Watson <niche wrote:

> .........

> In answer to your question, I'm not sure I have any

> deepest truth, other

> than a commitment to intellectual integrity. Whether

> it pertains to

> ourselves, our personalities, our health, or

> whatever, it's always better to

> know the truth as best we can, and deal with it. If

> we attempt to evade or

> deny some aspect of reality, it's bound to catch up

> with us eventually,

> often in the form of a shock or nasty surprise. So

> it's much better to

> follow the truth relentlessly in the first instance,

> wherever it may lead.

> In other words, we adapt ourselves to reality rather

> than making a futile

> attempt at the opposite. I know it sounds a little

> trite to say; after all,

> who is against truth? But I think we all know that

> actually doing it takes a

> great deal of energy.

>

> Robert.