Guest guest Posted April 5, 2001 Report Share Posted April 5, 2001 advaitin, "Kuntimaddi Sadananda" <k_sadananda@h...> wrote: > > > > >"Madhava K. Turumella" <madhava@m...> > > > > > > > > colette@b... [colette@b...] > > > Now, how can something without limits have a center? It can't, can it? > > > >YES! It can! The center is at the very same place, where you are > >*thinking* > >of starting your journey from! :-) > > > >I remain Yours, > >Madhava Pardon me, but may I join this conversation? Your discussion brings up a number of points that I have never been able to reconcile with my understanding of the Godhead... You answer Collete: >yes or no - yes only if one thinks that he is limited with a center >and he has to do the journey towards the truth Wouldn't it be true that, ipso facto, only that which already *is* limited would think this? That which believes itself to be limited with a center would of necessity have to make a journey, however illusory or "unreal" that journey might be from an absolute perspective. Thus, your statement seems tautological to me. There's no "only if" about it. If you have the sense of being finite, you do have a journey ahead of you, however much you mentally assert or believe that you are"really," if you could only "realize" it, infinite. That you are "really" infinite can't be an abstract statement, however, "true;" it seems to me. Infinitude must be demonstrated, made evident. Unless it is, all claims about the Self, or the infinite, or whatever, remains at the level of abstraction, or at best, potentiality or possibility, but not concrete or "real" in any sense of "real" that I can agree to. >no if you have realized that you are that infinite and there is no >need for any journey. Likewise, that which has truly "realized" (or, to remove the past tense and make it more accurate, that which "realizes") that it is infinite and has no need for a journey would not even entertain the thought that it didn't have a need for a journey and that it wasn't already infinite. The moment you say "if you have realized" you are immediately talking about that which cannot know itself as infinite, and which does indeed have a journey ahead of it. Indeed, there's no one to tell "if you have realized that your are infinite" *to*, except that which is demonstrably not infinite. Thus, the tautology, in my opinion. (As a general comment, what I have found is that much of mysticism, whether East or West, seems fraught with problems that are more semantic and logical, and epistemological, than factual or "real.") >Infinity and center and infinity with a center all notions drop out >in the infinity. Even the concept of infinity also drops out - These >words are used only to negate the notions of opposite. Infinity >only means it is not any finite - objects, concepts, notions etc. >etc.. existent only means it is not non existent. It is >undifferentiable, incomprehensible, unmanifest etc., opposites >of what we know or can know by intellect. Once again,I find this reasoning to be rife with semantical problems, and perhaps some philosophical problems of categories and meaning, rather than as necessarily reflecting some final conclusions about the I Am or divine Self. It also seems to me that these statements have the built-in paradox, of being self-contradictory in their very assertion, because the moment you say that the infinite is "undifferentiated, incomprehensible, unmanifest etc." you have immediately stated a *semantical* falsehood every bit as wrong as the assertion that it *is* differentiated, comprehensible, and manifest. Whether or not either statement is a *metaphysical* truth or falsehood remains for awakening itself to resolve, not a priori assertions about the nature of the infinite being this,or not this! That infinity as a "concept" must disappear in actually knowing of the divine Self, or Godhead, seems clear and almost universally acknowledged, whatever one believes about the final nature of the infinite itself. To realize the built-in limitations and contradictions of human thought and language is assuredly an important step in spiritual awakening. But it seems just one step of awakening. Even the the semanticist S.I. Hiyakawa said famously: "The map is not the terrain." Whatever the human mind can say or think or believe about anything must, by its very nature, not be finally true or final. Finally, I do not agree that what is can only be defined by what it is not -- a fundamental belief of many mystical traditions (and please note that I refer to "mysticism" is the highest and most positive sense). Truth defines itself. The "neti, neti" approach to Truth is itself limited to the verbal/semantic system is is derived from. While the human mind can only conceive of a good that is an opposite of a bad, a light that is the opposite of a dark, an infinity that is the opposite of finiteness and things, it seems to me pure psychological projection of the limited ego to ascribe this limitation to the Divine. I do not see unopposed Mind as having a problem or limitation of revealing what is! It is, in itself and of itself, what is! Just because we cannot conceive of isness or being without non-isness or non-being, doesn't mean that is a "problem" for God! The "problem" is ours. In humility, rather than saying conclusively we can be sure that that the infinite is "undifferentiable," incomprehensible, and unmanifest," (just because our finite minds cant grasp how it could be otherwise) I would leave that conclusion to the Divine's own revelation of Itself. Ditto that it is not those things! The divine Mind itself will say what it is; indeed,is known to Itself as Itself,and this reflex self-knowing is the divine Self-knowledge that I believe Jesus was referring two when he said, "I and my Father are one," and "As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father," if I may quote something from my own tradition. To say, in my present state of ignorance, that the divine Mind is unexpressed, for example. or that it is unmanifest, is simply to assert what I absolutely cannot know or prove. At best, in our prayer, meditation, and awakening, we can perhaps infer some things about the great I AM, but always with the realization that human concepts and words are, at best, the finger pointing at the moon, not the moon itself. The non-dual insight of Shankara and Ramana is enormously profound, as is the insight of the Buddha, but whether the divine One, without second or equal, necessarily means the the Godhead does not also include the divine Many, or infinite manifestation, the unlimited and infinite divine image and likeness, is to me a point beyond verbal argument. We can only see for ourselves through awakening, and what we know from the reports of others who have gone some distance down this path, is that there may be far more to the Godhead than dualism, non-dualism, or transcendentalism, or anything our pitifully limited minds can even conceive. I can't rule out anything, until I know God for myself, or more accurately, as my true Self, or divine Mind. If the view of non-Duality proves to be true, there will be no one to argue, since that is what is. Likewise,if we find the Self, divine Love, to include divine creativity and infinite manifestation, that too will be what is, and beyond argument. In the meantime, I do enjoy, with my admittedly very finite and human mind, arguing, why I think one view is more likely to be true than another, and in that spirit of friendly encounter, I offer these remarks for your consideration. With all respect and love, Steve Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 5, 2001 Report Share Posted April 5, 2001 >stevenfair >>advaitin, "Kuntimaddi Sadananda" ><k_sadananda@h...> wrote: > >Pardon me, but may I join this conversation? Your discussion >brings up a number of points that I have never been able to >reconcile with my understanding of the Godhead... > >You answer Collete: > > >yes or no - yes only if one thinks that he is limited with a center > >and he has to do the journey towards the truth > >Wouldn't it be true that, ipso facto, only that which already *is* >limited would Unless it is, all claims >about the Self, or the infinite, or whatever, remains at the level of >abstraction, or at best, potentiality or possibility, but not >concrete >or "real" in any sense of "real" that I can agree to. Thank you steve for the beautiful writeup. Looking forward for your future input. I do not see any contradition from what I wrote and what you wrote. But let us discuss. I think what you said does not negate what I worte- your emphasis of the point on realization of true nature of oneself is absolutely true!Hence JK says: "It is an understanding as understanding as a fact and not as understanding as an understanding as a thought". > > >no if you have realized that you are that infinite and there is no > >need for any journey. > >Likewise, that which has truly "realized" (or, to remove the past >tense and make it more accurate, that which "realizes") that it is >infinite and has no need for a journey would not even entertain >the thought that it didn't have a need for a journey and that it >wasn't already infinite. The moment you say "if you have realized" >you are immediately talking about that which cannot know itself >as infinite, and which does indeed have a journey ahead of it. Again you are absolutely right - realized soul who understands nature of himslef as a fact than as a thought. >Indeed, there's no one to tell "if you have realized that your are >infinite" *to*, except that which is demonstrably not infinite. Thus, >the tautology, in my opinion. (As a general comment, what I have >found is that much of mysticism, whether East or West, seems >fraught with problems that are more semantic and logical, and >epistemological, than factual or "real.") True again - no disagreements. In adviata - real is defined as "trikaala abhaaditam satyam" - essentially that which is never negated in all three periods of time alone is true. I as the waker is dismissed by dreamer, I as a dreamer is dismissed by the deep sleeper and I as a deepsleeper is dismissed by the waker - I am that remains in the waking state, dream state and deepsleep state is never dismissed and that is the true nature of mine which is real by the above definition as well. In kena upanishads - what you said is emphasized - who understands it understand it not since any understaninding is an objectification. It it is very subject which is beyond the known and the unknown. All the concpets are in the real of known and unknown. Hence anything that is said about it is only pointers but not pointed. pointed is beyond the pointers. What is said in terms of satyam jnaanam anantam is only indicaters of the truth from what we know - We have to use the intellectual inquiry to beyong the intellectual inquiry - like pole wault. > > >Infinity and center and infinity with a center all notions drop out > >in the infinity. Even the concept of infinity also drops out - >These > >words are used only to negate the notions of opposite. Infinity > >only means it is not any finite - objects, concepts, notions etc. > >etc.. existent only means it is not non existent. It is > >undifferentiable, incomprehensible, unmanifest etc., opposites > >of what we know or can know by intellect. > >Once again,I find this reasoning to be rife with semantical >problems, and perhaps some philosophical problems of >categories and meaning, rather than as necessarily reflecting >some final conclusions about the I Am or divine Self. It also >seems to me that these statements have the built-in paradox, of >being self-contradictory in their very assertion, because the >moment you say that the infinite is "undifferentiated, >incomprehensible, unmanifest etc." you have immediately stated >a *semantical* falsehood every bit as wrong as the assertion >that it *is* differentiated, comprehensible, and manifest. Whether >or not either statement is a *metaphysical* truth or falsehood >remains for awakening itself to resolve, not a priori assertions >about the nature of the infinite being this,or not this! No conflicts with that - yet Veda describe throug words that which cannot be described. the contradition is very evident but that is the only tool we have - The best thing is to reamin sailent - But teacher cannot communicate fully to all - Bhagavaan Ramana or Nisargadatta maharaj communicated through discussions and writings that which cannot be communicated - The paradox is the very nature of the problem, Because we are trying to seek for a solution when there is really no problem to start with. Only solution to the problem is to communicate that the problem is an invalid problem - That is the reason why religious teacher has real problem of how to communicate with words that is beyond the words. Please read - Religious teching by John Grimes - an excellent book. I think it is his thesis work. > >That infinity as a "concept" must disappear in actually knowing of >the divine Self, or Godhead, seems clear and almost universally >acknowledged, whatever one believes about the final nature of >the infinite itself. To realize the built-in limitations and >contradictions of human thought and language is assuredly an >important step in spiritual awakening. But it seems just one step >of awakening. Even the the semanticist S.I. Hiyakawa said >famously: "The map is not the terrain." Whatever the human >mind can say or think or believe about anything must, by its very >nature, not be finally true or final. True - but that is limitation of can communication through the words. For a mature students - Shree Dakshanamuurty teaches by silence - yet he uses the chinmudra - to sybolize the teaching of infinite or limitelessness. > >Finally, I do not agree that what is can only be defined by what it >is not -- a fundamental belief of many mystical traditions (and >please note that I refer to "mysticism" is the highest and most >positive sense). Truth defines itself. The "neti, neti" approach to >Truth is itself limited to the verbal/semantic system is is derived >from. While the human mind can only conceive of a good that is >an opposite of a bad, a light that is the opposite of a dark, an >infinity that is the opposite of finiteness and things, it seems to >me pure psychological projection of the limited ego to ascribe >this limitation to the Divine. I do not see unopposed Mind as >having a problem or limitation of revealing what is! It is, in >itself >and of itself, what is! Just because we cannot conceive of >isness or being without non-isness or non-being, doesn't mean >that is a "problem" for God! The "problem" is ours. No disagreement with that either - but here we are the ones who are communicating through these e-mails - limitation of the communication is obviously self-evident. REst more leisurely Hari Om! Sadananda > >With all respect and love, >Steve > _______________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 5, 2001 Report Share Posted April 5, 2001 advaitin, "Kuntimaddi Sadananda" <k_sadananda@h...> wrote: > > > > >stevenfair > >>advaitin, "Kuntimaddi Sadananda" > ><k_sadananda@h...> wrote: > > > > >Pardon me, but may I join this conversation? Your discussion > >brings up a number of points that I have never been able to > >reconcile with my understanding of the Godhead... ><snip> > Thank you Steve for the beautiful write-up. Looking forward for your future > input. I do not see any contradiction from what I wrote and what you wrote. > But let us discuss: <Big, giant snip!> >REst more leisurely >Hari Om! >Sadananda Sadananda, I am greatly heartened by your loving and patient reply. I am glad to know we find mutual ground on so many essential points, and I too, *fully* agree with the many temperate qualifications and modifications you pointed out about what I said. I fear I often tend to overstate my case, but I am learning! And I especially agree with all that you said about silence, and yet the need for conveying something in words. (Thank God our spiritual teachers did!) I have always been so moved by the fact that silence may be the greatest "thing" a spiritual teacher can "say," for in that silence, what is unutterable in words, and beyond words, is nonetheless intelligently and lovingly conveyed as the very divine Presence itself. (In my tradition, we call that felt presence the Holy Spirit.) Of course, that silence is no typical silence! It can only be felt strongly in the presence of those who have lost much self, and so, have found the divine Self, which is Love. With gratitude for your words, (and seeking leisure in Love <g>) Steve Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.