What is the point - Part 2

[Guest guest]

Dennis

 

Free will - sadhana - realization etc are as real as the 'problem' or

samsaara is. If one thinks the problem that I am samsaari is real then to

the same of order of reality, the others also correspond to. From the

realized state samsaara is only a joke and so are the others too. By the

by, even the scriptures fall under the same category.

 

One can surrender ones free will at the alter of love then 'His will' will

be done - it amounts to -whatever I will - will be considered as His will

alone. In the process 'i' do not take the responsibility - the 'I' or HE

takes the responsibility - at least that will be the surrender's conception

- which frees his mind to contemplate.

 

Dennis I have known you enough through this and other lists, and

therefore aware of your Vedantic background. I was only surprised in your

strong assertive or concluding statements of the nature of the problem and

the solutions that you propose. If the problem is self - ignorance' then

'self-knowledge' is the only solution. I do agree with you that

self-knowledge or any knowledge for that matter can not be willed. If so

everybody could have willed his or her realization. But at the same time

for any knowledge, again whether it is an objective knowledge or self-

knowledge, mind needs to be prepared - I cannot leave the mind to a random

choice and let it learn randomly physics, chemistry or math or ones own

self. The probability of my receiving randomly the knowledge of Chemistry

or math is close to zero. But if I make effort to concentrate and study

under proper guidance, it is no more random since there is bias set in the

direction and the probability can be very high depending on how committed I

am. In effect I have to prepare the mind adequately to receive the

knowledge. That is by free-will or choice or by sadhana. That of course

cannot guarantee that I will gain the self knowledge since it is what

Vedanta calls it as 'vastu trantra' and not 'purusha tantra' - it has to

dawn on me and rather than I try to reach it.

 

But if the solution depends on somebody else - like the grace of God etc.

then I have no choice but wait for the grace to fall. Then I have to be in

favorable terms with Him to get his grace - being favorable terms with Him

may be my choice if I know how to be in favorable terms. That part atleast

is free will but His grace is not my free will - In effect His grace is the

same as knowledge dawning on one whose mind is ready to receive.

 

But if I have got bound by a random process then I agree with you that the

liberation is also by the same way. But if there is a ' will' involved

then there is a will involved in Sadhana too. Well we cannot say how we

started getting bound, we can see that we can get more and more bound by

our indulgence that is by expercising ones free will - That is what -

Dhyaayato vishhayaan pumsaH sanghaste shuupa jayate ... etc slokas in the

Ch. II of B.G where Krishna describes how we get bound through our

indulgence.

 

About the animals issue you raised: It is the same process- animals do not

get more bound since they have no will. A cow does not have to sit down

and evaluate her self and wonder why she should be vegetarian - neither a

tiger for that matter. They are instinctively driven and there is no sin

involved in their actions. - mostly because they do not perform willful

actions. Even by Law a will-full misconduct is much more punishable than an

accidental behavior. If the ignorance is the problem then for the

knowledge to takes place one should have subtle intellect to receive that

knowledge - Hence the glorification of the human being. There is a famous

subhaashitam:

ahaara nidraa bhaya maitunancha saamanyametat

pashubhinnaraanaam|

buddhirhi teshhaam adhiko visheshhaH, budhyaa vihiinaaH pashubhi

samaanaaH||

Hunger for food, sleep, fear and desire for prodigy are the same for

animals and human beings.

Only that makes the difference between the two is the intellect and if it

is not there (or used properly) then man and animal are the same.

 

Hence if there is a 'will' in falling down -then there is a 'will' in

raising up - Hence Shankara says:

satsangatve nissangatvam, nissangatve nirmohatvam|

nirmohatve nischala tatvam, nischala tatve jiivanmuktaH||

Bu the company of good one (sat sangh) one gains detachment and by

detachment one looses the longingness for sensuous pleasures and by that

one gains a calm and quiet mind and from that one gains liberation while

living. Hence the process of ascend is described and involves exercise of

choice to be with company of the good - essentially Shama and Dama -

mentally and physically avoiding the circumstances that dissipate mental

energies.

 

Hence all these including the problem are realities within the Vyavahaara -

when one transcends these then neither there is a problem of bondage nor

free will etc. In fact you see this in the deep sleep state itself were

the ignorance as non-apprehension alone remains without a misapprehension.

At that time one has no concept of bondage and there is no free will either.

 

Well, think about it without accepting or rejecting right away - I am sure

we will be discussing these again and again in one form or the other until

there is no more 'We' to have the free-will to do the discussions.

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

 

K. Sadananda

Code 6323

Naval Research Laboratory

Washington D.C. 20375

Voice (202)767-2117

Fax:(202)767-2623

[Guest guest]

 

Dennis Waite <dwaite

advaitin <advaitin >

Thursday, August 10, 2000 9:23 AM

What is the point - Part 2

[...]

>Similarly, I agree with Greg - there are lots of 'paths' to suit all tastes

>BUT ultimately they are all describing the same truth. Surely they should

>not differ in fundamentals. Either there is really a creation or there

>isn't; there are paths or there are not; one has choice or hasn't;

>individuals are reborn or they aren't. Surely no one truth can have it all

>ways?

[...]

 

I sympathize with the sincere, seeking tone of your questions and comments,

but I would just like to point out that, from any beginning set of

assumptions, the issues are not always so clear cut. For example, is piece

of steel solid or not? Obviously in the gross sense it is, and yet every

school child knows that it is composed of a crystal lattice of atoms, and

that most of the space it occupies is empty. So the question: "Is it or

isn't it?" must sometimes be answered with: "Yes and no, depending on the

context and how you look at it." One thinks of Ramana Maharshi and his

statement that the personal deities "are as real as the people who believe

in them." The man could be devilishly clever with the turn of a phrase...

 

Robert.

[Guest guest]

Shree Dennis Waite wrote:

>

>As Sadananda observes, I had made several conclusions before asking but the

>point about experimentation does not seem really to apply. (I cannot

>consciously investigate the theory of reincarnation for example!) The reason

>for my post was genuinely to seek guidance from others, such as yourself, to

>indicate how you reconcile the more glaring inconsistencies. The most

>obvious is the question of rebirth and samsara. Since there are in reality

>no individuals, how can there be reincarnation? Nisargaddatta says "The

>objective part of what was once a sentient being will be destroyed, never to

>be re-born as the same body. And consciousness is not an object, not a thing

>at all - therefore, consciousness, as something non-objective, cannot be

>'born', cannot 'die' and certainly cannot be 're-born'." This seems so

>obvious. How, therefore can traditional presentations claim this?

>

>What concerns me particularly is that I have always been led to believe

>that, for those aspects that are not amenable to direct discovery ourselves,

>one resorts to the sruti. These provide the source of knowledge for all

>those things (c.f. the superb posting from Jaishankar Narayanan on pramaanam

>recently). If living sages directly contradict what is said there, then it

>seems that nothing can be trusted.

 

Dennis here is my understanding:

 

For things beyond mind and intellect such as extra sensory perceptions

etc, you are right the pratyaksha and anumaana are not the means of

knowledge - For example, of the existence of heaven or hell or

reincornation - for that only shabda specifically shRiti, is the pramaanam.

In Vedanta, no words of any specific realized soal is taken as valid,

however great he may be, unless they are in tune with the Vedic statements.

Hence the Veda-s become ultimate pramaana and not the statements of a

particular realized souls. For example Kapila muni's saankya is taken and

discussed even by Krishna in sankhya yoga only the parts that agree with

Vedantic view. The parts that are in disagreement with Vedanta are

rejected out right, and Badaraayana does that effectively in

Brahmasuutra-s. Hence teaching at an individual level is rejected and

considered not as a pramaana when it disagrees with the Vedic statements.

Hence there are no contradictions from the Vedantic point - if there are

any, they are only apparent and arise due to lack of correct understanding

of the scriputres - hence a teacher or a sampradaaya teacher is needed to

unravel the teachings correctly. Now comming back in terms of

Nisargadatta's statements - one has to understand with reference to what he

is addressing the issue. From the point of Brahman there is no question of

incornation - then what to talk about reincornation. From the point of

matter there is no incornation or reincornation either. What incornates or

reincornates are the notions in the mind that I am jiiva -This is a pseudo

entity - when consciousness identifies with the body, mind and intellect,

forgets who he is and get established in that notions - that is the ego or

jiiva. As long as ego or jiiva is considered as real - incornation and

reincornations are equally real. But from the point of truth, ego itslef

is false and when it falls away where is the question of reincornation and

who is going to ask whom?. Hence one has to understand Nisargadatta's

statement in correct perspective - from what reference state he is talking

obout. This is the reason why one has to be carefully in taking somebody

statement on its face value without fully realizing complete context of the

discussions and also from what reference state the statement was made. No

realized soul wants to mislead anybody but one get mislead if the

discussion is not properly understood. Hence if one discovers any

controversy it is better to go back to the original source, the Vedanta,

which is independent of any particualr person or place.

 

Hence place a trust not any living or non-living sage but in Vedantic

pramana as the independent source. Hence a right teacher is one who

directs his disciple not to relay on his statements per sec but to the

original scriptures - Hence Vedanta advices one to approach a teacher who

is not only well established in Brahman but who himself has undergone the

teaching from a teacher of Sampradaaya - that is who has the through

knowledge of scritures and who can also communicate the ideas in the light

of his understanding and experience.

 

>

>Yet another clear and apposite article 'Why Vedanta?' from Sadananda. No

>quibbles with most of this except the part about solutions. Yes, I agree

>with the steps shravaNa, manana and nidhidhyaasana, but again you are

>implying that one can choose to do this and I believe (and believe that the

>sruti states this in some places) that an 'individual' cannot 'do'

>anything - and that includes 'choosing' to do something, itself an act. Yes,

>'I am that consciousness - I am that Brahman'; I am not an individual with

>self-determining ability to act.

 

Dennis - here the problem as I see is you are jumping from one reference to

the other. From the absolute Braham, one without a second, there is no

question of doing - hence free will etc does not arise. Hence if you have

understood that "I am Brahman" - the problem is already solved and there is

no need of these discussions either. Accept my pranaams and that is the

end.

 

Discussion is only when we have only saamanaya Jnaanam - that I am Brahman

but not realized that 'I am Brahman' - Hence when I consider that I am a

jiiva - then there is doer ship assoicated with the jiivaship - and free

will operates since I got into that state by my own free will.

 

Bottom line is one has to be very carefull from what reference one is

discussing these issues. From one reference the other looks contradictory

- if we are not aware that we are unconsciously switching references then

we find lot of controversies in the teachings.

 

Any way think about these things and see if you still find contradictions

in the teachings.

 

>I love the story about the rat and Mr. Jones - I remember reading it before.

>It is a very useful analogy and I fully appreciate the import. I also have

>full intellectual appreciation that I am not a rat! Obviously, we all

>realise that something more than this is needed, however. I was not saying

>that one CAN wait for randomness to operate, I was saying that one has no

>choice but to do so.

 

Dennis - I see some contradition in your last statement. - waiting for

randomeness to operate or not waiting for randomness to operate - is it a

choice or is it random too! - if it is random then the statements confirms

that one has to wait for randomeness to operate - if you are not waiting

then you are doing something along the lines your mind is directing towards

the goal you have in mind. If there is no goal at all then you will end up

waking randomly. But as discussed in Vedanta - and emphasized by Shree

Jayashankar that one is naturally driven in the direction of seeking

oneself - as everyone is seeking ananda in all pursuits. Then it is no

more a random walk problem.

 

>The individual setting off on a path and doing this or

>that (were any of this possible anyway) would never get anywhere.

 

I think this is a conclusion that is not right from the point of Vedanta.

For the Brahma vidya one has to be adhikaari as Shankara points out in his

bhaasha on Brahmasuutra - That is one has to acquire the sadhana

chatushhTayam the four fold qualifications and the purpose of all paths,

karmas, as Shankara emphasizes is precisely for one to get qualified for

the knowledge - that is not by random process.

 

>The

>individual cannot become enlightened. (Presumably we do all agree with this

>last statement? I am a bit worried when you make statements such as 'I am

>what I am seeking - but as long as I am seeking I have not realized what

>truly I am'.)

 

My statement was made from the point of knoweldge. Whenever the seeker and

sought are one and the same, any seeking on the part of the seeker is

likely to fail since in the very process of seeking one has made an

intrinsic assumption that the saught is not there where the seeker is.

But to prepare oneself in receiving the true knowedge 'you are that' one

has to prepare the mind - since mind is not ready to accept since as

shankara puts it - one needs chitta sudhhi - purified mind - a mind free

from all notions - including a notion that it is a random process! Remember

even for Nisargadatta Maharaj it took three years after his teacher taught

him that 'you are not this but that'. He was meditating on the teachings

of his master before he realized that indeed he is not this but that.

 

 

Depending upon our nature, we may follow a process of

>brainwashing ourselves that we are indeed a man. Presumably all of us on

>this list will do so - I certainly will. But I do this because I am that

>sort of a person, not because I have a choice. Also, I accept that it can

>never achieve anything for ME (other than intellectual amusement and a

>feeling that I am doing something useful with my life). Consciousness is

>already consciousness; is all there is and never was anything else. The fact

>that its manifestation in this body-mind mechanism has resulted in the

>illusion of a separate entity does not alter the reality of the situation.

 

True it does not alter the reality of the situation and thank God for that.

But what it appears to have alterned is my notions about myself. I donot

consider myslef to be 'pure unadultareted consciouness that truely I am'

but take myslef this limited body, mind and intellect. At least that much

is altered and that is the big problem! That apprent change appears to be

real unless the apparent aspect becomes apparent. To see the substratam of

absolute reality in this apprently changing reality, my mind has to stand

back and watch for the substratum and not to get carried away with the

apperarences. To be able to stand apart and watch (witness), I have to

have certain detachment from the apparent flow. The process of detachments

is what is called purification of the mind and for which yoga and sadhana

are emphasized as a means. I cannot wait for the random process to make

me detach from the flow of apparently real things.

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

 

 

 

 

 

 

K. Sadananda

Code 6323

Naval Research Laboratory

Washington D.C. 20375

Voice (202)767-2117

Fax:(202)767-2623

[Guest guest]

 

Dennis Waite [dwaite]

Thursday, August 10, 2000 10:32 AM

advaitin

What is the point - Part 2

 

I don't mind your being blunt, Harsha. My problem is not with my particular

nature finding more affinity with modern than traditional, it is with there

being some elements that seem blatantly contradictory. I believe there is

only one Truth and, even though this is beyond words, I expect those in whom

this truth has been manifest to make more or less the same statements. Not

being expressible does not seem a licence for being contradictory.

__________________________

_______________

Dennis, I see what you are saying. You are looking to the "outside" for a

general consensus and confirmation of the Truth of the Self.

Self-Realization is Self-Confirming. There can be no one "outside" to

confirm it. So the question of contradictions cannot rise. The genuine Sages

say "Go Within" Or "Dive Deep in to your own Reality" through what ever

spiritual practice that comes easy to you.

 

The traditional yogic path is that of meditation, self-inquiry, Samadhis of

various types and then Nirvikalpa Samadhi. Then, the natural process of

integration and thinning of vasanas and the Sahaj state follows. Ramana

Maharshi has said that Moksha is our very nature, but the false notion that

we are the body prevents the Realization from becoming apparent. As Murthyji

pointed out, there are no short cuts to Moksha. According to the scriptures,

the two wings that take one to Moksha are said to be Varaigya - Renunciation

(detachment from the mental tendencies) and Abhayas - Spiritual Practice.

 

Ultimately Dennis, you must make the effort yourself and Realize the Self.

Short of that, nothing can satisfy you and nothing should! If you say that

you have no choice in what you do, that is fine as well. If you have no

choice in anything whatsoever, and you have truly realized this and are at

peace with that, then just relax and enjoy the show.

 

Either way Dennis, you win.

 

Love

Harsha

[Guest guest]

Dennis Waite wrote:

>

> I believe there is only one Truth and, even though this

> is beyond words, I expect those in whom this truth has

> been manifest to make more or less the same statements.

> Not being expressible does not seem a licence for being

> contradictory. I didn't mean that traditional advaita

> was confusing per se, it becomes confusing only when

> modern sages flatly contradict what it seems to be saying.

 

ok, this seems to be the essence of your quandary.

and this being the case, and the way you've framed it,

offers an extraordinary opportunity to clarify what

seems to be one of the most popular misconceptions.

 

the issue here concerns relative truth vs Absolute Truth.

it is Truth, as lao tzu pointed out, that cannot be formed

into any idea. jnana deals directly and solely with Truth,

and doesn't give a fig about [relative] truth. this is

the key to attaining moksha. and it's also why--as greg

alluded to--contradictions are inconsequential...simply

because they're concerned with either 1) methodology for

attaining moksha or 2) matters in/of the Play (brahman's

leela): including the evolution of

the soul, cosmology, fate vs free will, isvara, quantum

physics, and whatever else occupies the Universal Mind

manifesting in each individual [as necessary patterns

and systems enabling the leela to function!]. *however*,

these patterns and systems aren't the primal BEING

(parabrahmam); they're Its creative products, vitally

mixed with Order and Chaos [as the *master paradigm*

of Relativity (mulaprakrit)]. and with this inevitable

archetypal set-up, *literally anything* is possible.

and this finally ushers us into to the pure Mystery!

as does its progenitor, the ineffable brahman Itself.

 

and it's the latter we're after. Its products in the

Play are merely for our (brahman's!) entertainment.

so if one sage is saying there is no free will, and

another is saying there is--even emphatically--deep

down they know that's not the real issue whatsoever!

they're addressing a particular mindset: where--for

example--if the ego believes in the illusion of

itself, the illusion of freewill has to also exist.

but this isn't either the Truth. it's a *relative*

truth. so, all the trouble we manage to get ourselves

into is simply the result of the habit of our Mind

that expects Absolute answers to Relative questions.

 

a jnani is exonerated from understanding or not the

literally infinite permutations of relative truths.

he's only concerned with the Absolute Truth, which

is singular, trans-logical and omnipresent in the

causal, attributeless nature of Being Itself; and

however It happens to creatively manifest in Life--

its Play--has nothing to do with its unfathomable

essence. it's only the Play--with unimaginable

combinations of relative possibilities!

 

this is not to say that relative truths are, in of

themselves, unimportant--of course they possess a

*relatively* important value...which relates to the

given situation at hand. which leads us to the key

to the solution of the whole problem: they have no

*absolutely* important value. obviously this can

be confusing FOR THE RELATIVE-BOUND MIND.

 

we [in our habit in worshipping the protocol of our

relative-bound Mind] therefore intensely desire and

even demand continuity and clarity in our lives.

we also tend to think that advaita--or any non-dual

philosophy--is the answer to this mandate. quite

the contrary--it isn't an answer to *anything*!

and this is what has to be understood!

 

the only thing that becomes clear in Self-realization

is the fact that the Mind and its cause is rooted in

unfathomable Mystery! and the jnani becomes relaxed

alongside this otherwise maddening life-condition...

completely at peace with it, because he's dwelling

in full awareness within its everpresent *substratum*.

 

OM shaanthi