ready to hear..

[Guest guest]

hariH OM!

 

regarding our recent discussions...please

consider the following..

 

contradiction is an inevitable byproduct of

Relativity. allow me to explain why and how

this is so, and what are its implications..

 

within the spectral limits of the vyavahara

(the Relative domain), the incidences of what

we're inspired to claim as 'truth' can never

be anything more than relative, since this is

the intrinsic nature of vyavahara, by definition.

this is self-evident by virtue of the concepts

involved.

 

given the logical concordance implicit in

this observation, we now have to delve into

the practical outcome of what it means to be

observing or assessing 'relative truth.'

i.e. what are its implications within the

scope of our sadhana.

 

first consider that if there were in fact clear

and incontrovertible answers to whether or not,

for example, reincarnation is a 'reality,' or

whether it's free will or fate we're dealing

with, it would have been *long ago* clearly

and definitively stated in sruti! it is not.

 

here come the ramifications...

 

since it is not and since there remains an obvious

divergence in these matters [and others like them],

proves the fact that statements made one way and

then the other, are so because they're tailored to

the *temporal* [and therefore changing/differing]

needs of the listener. therefore these are [by

nature, incidentally, *very flexible*] 'relative

truths.'

 

it follows that there cannot be an absolute truth

within the domain of the relative world, which is

itself unavoidably a product of maya--which is, in

turn, the product of an inevitable mixture of the

components of truth and falsehood.

 

the relative Mind expects Absolute answers.

oxymoronic idea. mega-moronic request.

(couldnt resist that one :-)

 

*moreover*, how could any such knowledge--for

example, whether we [as well as isvara] definitely/

permanently have free will--itself deliver moksha?

beyond the temporary appeasing of the Mind's

veracity to know (which *could* have an application

within a certain framework unique to the individual),

such 'knowledge' in/of itself really serves no

abiding strategic purpose. it is at best tenuous.

 

the fact inexorably remains: the relative world in

its 'united-overview' is a mystery without resolution.

and if/when we attempt to get specific within it,

launching philosophical or scientific investigations,

regardless of the veracity of our efforts we simply

cannot break the Relativity barrier and wind up with

anything beyond 'relative truths.'

 

the implications of this are far reaching. (regarding

the potential discovery of these implications: it's

likened to when you read a passage in a book, for

example, and later read that same passage, arriving

this time at some remarkable insight, whereupon

suddenly you realize the first time you read it you

glossed over it and didn't catch this insight.

obviously many reasons for this...)

 

and nothing is more applicable in the course of one's

sadhana than coming to terms with contradictions via

the insight of what 'relative truth' encompasses and

thereof implies.

 

it all becomes dependent upon one's accumulated level

of metaphysical understanding that one embarks upon a

given investigation into a specific matter. thus given

certain data and conditions, one will arrive at a

conclusion that is correct for *that specialized*

circumstance. and therefore, the conclusion reached

[wihin that contained circumstance] is and has to be

invariably a 'relative truth.' and, as we all know,

these [relative truths] are only indicators or pointers

the Mind needs to use to undo its ancient attachments.

 

it could be said, in this context, that the Mind is a

product of aeons of myriad and variegated hypnotic

suggestions resulting in a general malaise of confusion

and bewilderment...therefore our lot, and therefore

again, our charged mission. but on the path of jnana,

there will come a point where all of these matters in/of

the manifest relative world will be seen to be contained

in a neat vicious circle that can never hope to deliver

any absolute answers.

 

and because of the various [and *relative*!] insights

resulting from unique investigations of the relative world,

yield thus relative truths, the overview of the entire

picture presents one with *countless contradictions*!

since one relative will *invariably* violate another

relative truth on a *single* matter! so eventually one

comes to the unchallengeable recognition that these are

conditions in and of the ego-Mind programme. and so

upon arriving at this crossroads, one is presented with

[AND UNDERSTANDS NOW THE SIGNIFICANCE OF] the question

of questions: which is who is asking these questions to

begin with. and the thing about this question of questions

is that the 'answer' potentially forthcoming is not in

terms of any intellectual concept, but rather a profoundly

simple *feeling* that has in fact been imminent all along!

yet merely blocked by the divergence of the Mind steeped

in and urgently distracted by the relative world. which

simple feeling is none other than the central reality of

the Self Itself: unknowable, ineffable and inscrutable.

Who appears to be dwelling in Its Own projected Playground

of Its own eternal Mystery, whose purpose [at best] can be

defined as the means to Its expression of Its eternal and

infinite Bliss.

 

OM shaanthi