Guest guest Posted August 19, 2001 Report Share Posted August 19, 2001 Dear Shree Sada, >It has been a while since the above dialogue took place. Here are my >subsequent thoughts. > >While one may agree from the Advaitic viewpoint of one-time-surrender only, >yet, practically it is not feasible for a sAdhaka. It is because, say, at >this very moment a sAdhaka did not yet see the one- time 'surrender' taking >place, which is true for many sAdhakas. What does this lead him/het to ? >Should (s)he not do something to make it happen ? This is the gradual >willful surrender that was being referred to earlier. True, until such time >one is trying to surrender. However, rethinking, as one proceeds, perhaps >the difference between them does not matter ? > >With Love, Raghava Raghava Rao Gaaru, Namaste. Yes for sadhaka the surrenderance is the means and the goal too. Hence the process is considered as gradual as trying to surrender. This is actually the purification process. One is not able to fully surrender even if one wants to is due to the pressure of vaasanas. Final surrender occurs once. Once surrendered there is nothing left to surrender. If there is then one has not really surrendered yet. It is the same thing in j~naanam too. I cannot have rope displacing snake little by little. Hence it is not a process. Purification of the mind is of course a process and then yoga shaastra is involved in terms of purufication process. JK statement that "truth is the pathless land" also implies the same. Path is again if only for purification of the mind, unfortunately he does not emphasize that aspect and the 'apparent' followers of JK (the reason I call apparent is JK does not want anyone to follow him - yet there is a 'fuzzy-set' of JK followers) do not recognize the importance of sadhana and gets totally dislodged in the process. Hari OM! Sadananda _______________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 20, 2001 Report Share Posted August 20, 2001 Namaste Sada, Would you like to comment on the major distinction between Shankara's advaita and Ramanuja's vishishhTa-advaita that the former asserts jiivan-mukti [moksha/freedom while alive] as a fact, while the latter accepts videha-mukti [freedom after death] only? Some of the threads, I think, may revolve around this difference, and our inability to reconcile them. Regards, sunder advaitin, "Kuntimaddi Sadananda" <k_sadananda@h...> wrote: > > Raghava Rao Gaaru, > Namaste. Yes for sadhaka the surrenderance is the means and the goal too. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 20, 2001 Report Share Posted August 20, 2001 >Namaste Sada, > > Would you like to comment on the major distinction between >Shankara's advaita and Ramanuja's vishishhTa-advaita that the former >asserts jiivan-mukti [moksha/freedom while alive] as a fact, while the >latter accepts videha-mukti [freedom after death] only? > > Some of the threads, I think, may revolve around this >difference, and our inability to reconcile them. > >Regards, > >sunder Shree Sunder. My knowledge of vishishhTaadvaita is in the embryonic stage. In advaita - the liberation is simple - it is swataH siddham - an accomplished fact since "I am Brahman" is not to be gained but a fact to be recognized. Ignorance, aj~naana' about my self is the root cause for bondage. Since 'I am brahman' is self-existent fact, the liberation is to be gained 'now' and 'here'. Concept of 'time' is only a concept in the mind and relative and not absolute. Hence truly 'here' and 'now' only exist. Ignorance is in the intellect and liberation is also with the intellect only. Identification I am 'that' is a notion in the mind with which I identify myself. Identification ceases when the wrong notion drops out as discussed elaborately in my dialogue with Shree Nanda Chandran. Here is my understanding of VishishhTadvaitic concept of moksha In VishishhTa advaita - The adviata is vishishhTa - a qualified in the sense qualifications set in relating the jiiva with paramaatma - jiiva being 'tiny' and finite cannot be equated to Pramaatma who is infinite. There are multiple jiva-s. There is an organic relation between jiiva-s and paramaatrma, where he is infinite at the same time he is antaryaami or indweller of jiiva-s. He pervades jiiva-s in the same sense as the soul pervades the entire body -just as I experience my presence through out the body although I am not the body. Cause for bondage in vishishhTa advaita is 'ignorance' only - this 'ignorance' is of three fold - not knowing my own self, not knowing the swaruupa of the Lord and not knowing the interrelationship between myself and the Lord. Self-knowledge (self-knowledge does not mean brahma-aatma aikatya j~naanam or aham brahma asmi' - but it means understanding I am sat chit ananda swaruupa and not this inert body, mind and intellect) is a pre-requisite for the knowledge of Pramaatma. Hence it is a step towards the total knowledge. In the vishishhTaadvaitic tradition, one does not have to go after self-knowledge since it becomes a by-product in the knowledge of swaruupa of the Lord since jiiva is part of the totality of the Lord. If I know the totality, I should know the parts of that totality. In nidhidhhyaasana one gains knowledge (bhakti-ruupa j~naana) of his own self as well as some aspects of the nature of the Lord and his relationship with the Lord - He is independent and I am dependent on Him, etc. Without His grace and blessings, I cannot know myself nor the Lord. When I know the Lord, the ignorance related to the ignorance of the Lord goes away. While living, the upaadhi-s or body, mind and intellect are still there and my association with it ceases only when I leave the body (when prarabda karma ceases). That is when all the impurities associated with identification with the upaadhi-s ceases). Hence final liberation or moksha is videha mukti only - In the videha mukti, (even though I am still tiny), I have the knowledge of the Lord - knowledge of the Lord means knowledge of the His infinite nature along with all His infinite glories. Hence I have the sarvaj~natvam etc. Hence I also enjoy the infinite bliss associated with that knowledge. Hence jiiva has swaruupa knowledge plus attributive knowledge of - the nature of the Lord. Hence 'knowledge' is given a special ontological status in vishishhTaadviata. It is said in that 'divya vibhuuti' jiiva enjoys all that the Paramaatma enjoys except the sarvakaaraNatva - or creating this universe at His will. That is only reserved for the Lord. Surrenderance is emphasized by all the achaarya-s as the path for liberation. Ramanuja formulated using shriti anumaana - the sharaNaagati as the essential means for liberation. They equate Bhakti yoga with strict ritualistic methodologies emphasized in the upaasana portion of the Veda-s. Hence sharaNaagati is discussed as a different means from bhakti yoga and involves surrenderance to the Lord - manasaa, vaacha and kramaNaa - at the thought level, at the speech level and at the action level. 'Stages' are emphasized in the sharaNaagati - involving purification of the body-mind complex. I must confess that I do not have complete understanding of the sharaNaagati and the role of nidhidhyaasana emphasized in the Veda-s as nidhidhyaasitavyam where dhyaana by the word 'tavyah' is vidhi for God-realization. Last Saturday there was tele upanyaasam by Shree N.S.Anaantarangachaar on SharaNaagati. He mentioned that nidhidhyaasana is part of bhakti but not part of sharaNaagati - so I am totally confused now. I have to get these clarified more clearly. I am sending this mail to KrishNa Kalale, and Shree Mani Varadarajan. Hopefully they will find some time to tell us more detail about the sharaNaagati in VishishhTaadvaita tradition and the scriptural basis for this as the means of moksha, compare to what we understand as sharaNaagati in the advaitic tradition. I know KrishNa is on travel most of time and may respond when he finds time in between his travels. Mani, can you provide us some understanding of what exactly involved in SharaNagati and how it is different from nidhidhyaasana etc. Thanks. Hari OM! Sadananda -- K. Sadananda Code 6323 Naval Research Laboratory Washington D.C. 20375 Voice (202)767-2117 Fax:(202)767-2623 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 20, 2001 Report Share Posted August 20, 2001 Namaste Sadananda-Ji, Some what disappointed by the negative response to my postings from the list members, I am writing this to request you to provide some insights into the traditional understanding of Advaita. My quest for understanding of the Vedas (or the Truth) has not followed any particular school of thought. I have always believed that every school is presenting a view of the Vedas, thus each school is rightly termed a Veda Darshana (be it one of the six traditional schools, be it a buddhist school, be it a shaivaite school ...). I have come to a conclusion that Vedanta is a superset of all these schools and I see no contradictions between different schools of thought as seen from the point of view of Vedanta. (And how can there be, for "In the Self, all contradictions are resolved"). I must confess that I am no expert on the Advaita literature. Thus I would like to understand what the advaita literature says on the following issue: Say a person meditates and reaches a state where one is aware of just existence and bliss. When the person comes out of this state into the world of name and form, for a while the person lingers in a very pleasant state, namely, established in the Self, yet in the Vyavahara level. Does the Advaita literature refer to this as the state of Saguna Brahma ? I suspect this is the case. Suppose, by continued sadhana, the person prolongs the duration for which he/she experiences this state. Further suppose that the person reaches a point where, the experience of this wonderful state never ceases. The person has reached a spiritual maturity where he/she can meditate and experiences the absolute sat-cit-ananda state and once out of the meditation the person experiences the relative sat-chit-ananda state at vyavahara level, without ever falling into confusion. Should this not be identical with jivan mukti ? Does the Advaita literature say so ? warmest regards Shrinivas Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Messenger http://phonecard./ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 21, 2001 Report Share Posted August 21, 2001 Namaste sir Shrinivasji: Since you have made a specific request to Sri Sadananadaji, I just want to briefly offer my understanding of your complex question. The essence of what you are trying to resolve is explained in Bhagavadgita, chapter 5, verses: 16 - 21. Let me restate Swami Krishnanda's translation and commentary of these verses: "Jnanis have intuited the essential nature of Atman or the Self and have their mind focused on Him only. For them there is no other thing greater than Atman. In the world all the Jeevas, who are seen differently as Sattvic, Rajasic and Tamasic because of their different gunas, are seen (by the Jnanis) as of the form or essence of Parabrahma (the Absolute Reality) alone. In this manner as they have seen everything to be alike, neither the defect of considering higher people to be lower not the defect of considering lower people as higher will affect them; because, they have realized the truth that Brahman alone who is without defects is there in the forms of all Jeevas (souls) as well as their own (essential) form. As from this Jnana whatever is seen has become Brahman alone, there is no possibility at all of their getting overjoyed by seeing anything that is pleasing nor their getting dejected or depressed by seeing anything displeasing. To them happiness means Atman alone; that happiness has no end at all." According to Gita Jnanis are those who have the 'AtmaJnana' (realized the Brahman). Those who become Jivamuktas, don't go back to vyavahara level of reality. Please note the following facts regarding the classification of Vedic thoughts: The six systems of traditional schools of Indian philosophy that belong to Vedic Dharshana are: Nyaya, Vaiseshika, Samkhya, Yoga, Purva MimAmsa and Vedanta. Please note that buddhist school and the shaivite school do not fall into the above six categories Finally as one of the moderator, I honestly did not see anything negative about your postings to the list and the responses to your postings have been quite positive. All of us in the list do not agree with others' postings. The purpose of this list is better served by expressing disagreements politely without injecting inappropriate words or terms. I am aware that everyone in this list tries hard to keep cool while responding. We should be all grateful for this friendly environment. Most of the time, our pride is responsible for our hurt feelings. This story attributed to Swami Vivekananda can help all of us to understand why we feel hurt sometime. Once a soccer ball `filled with air' went to Yogi and complained that it is always being `kicked around.." The Yogi told the soccer ball that people will always kick the soccer ball `with the air' and to avoid the kicking, the ball should release all the air. The soccer ball obeyed the Yogi and released all the air. After words no one wants to kick the ball anymore and the soccer ball got liberated from kicking. We are also like the soccer ball filled with `ego' and feel hurt when see responses that do not agree with our thoughts! Regards, Ram Chandran advaitin, Shrinivas Gadkari <sgadkari2001> wrote: > Namaste Sadananda-Ji, > > Some what disappointed by the negative response to > my postings from the list members, I am writing > this to request you to provide some insights into the > traditional understanding of Advaita. > > My quest for understanding of the Vedas (or the > Truth) has not followed any particular school of > thought. I have always believed that every school > is presenting a view of the Vedas, thus each school > is rightly termed a Veda Darshana (be it one of the > six traditional schools, be it a buddhist school, > be it a shaivaite school ...). I have come to a > conclusion that Vedanta is a superset of all these > schools and I see no contradictions between > different schools of thought as seen from the point > of view of Vedanta. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 21, 2001 Report Share Posted August 21, 2001 Dear Shree Shrinivas, PraNaam-s. Thanks for post. My teacher used to tell me. No one can answer other person's questions. He has to answer to himself by himself. At the most, all others can provide are the directions to think, provided the questioner has an open mind to inquire in the directions provided. Here is an interesting episode to ponder. Someone went to Bhagavaan Ramana Maharshi and said, " Bhagavan, I have this question, and I have met so many mahaatma-s and asked this question and no one could answer me satisfactorily and I am came here to seek your answer", and was about to ask the question. Bhagavaan stopped him right there before he even asked. Bhagavaan said, "Blessed self, there is no need to ask the question because I know I will not be able to give satisfactory answers to your question". Because Bhagavaan realized that this gentleman loved his question so much that he is not ready to give up the question, come what may!. A mind which has concluded is not receptive for knowledge. If one is open minded to inquire then only knowledge can come to him. This is the law of the nature. I will try to provide what I understand to the best I can. I request you to dwell on it deeply before you accept or reject it. > >My quest for understanding of the Vedas (or the >Truth) has not followed any particular school of >thought. I have always believed that every school >is presenting a view of the Vedas, thus each school >is rightly termed a Veda Darshana (be it one of the >six traditional schools, be it a buddhist school, >be it a shaivaite school ...). I have come to a >conclusion that Vedanta is a superset of all these >schools and I see no contradictions between >different schools of thought as seen from the point >of view of Vedanta. (And how can there be, for >"In the Self, all contradictions are resolved"). In my introductory chapter I to Notes on Brahmasuutra, I have discussed in a general sense, the different traditional schools of thoughts. What you said in terms of dashana-s is true - they all try to address the fundamental issues: What is the nature of jiiva?, what is nature of Brahman?, What is the relation between the two?, what is bondage? and what are the means of liberation?. This aspect is common to all. To that extent only your conclusion is right. Six schools of naastika do not believe Veda-s as pramaaNa. The six aastika schools that believe in Veda pramaaNa, differ significantly in terms of the answers to the five questions. Vedantin-s form only one of the later six set. Among them there are again various interpretations of the same Vedanta (upanishads) texts. Of these, there are three major schools of thought - advaita is only one of them - the other two are vishishhTa advaita and dvaita. They differ significantly in terms of the nature of jiiva, nature of Brahman, the relation between the two and nature of bondage and the means of liberation -- Your statement, 'in the Self, all contraditions are resolved', is more close to advaita which equates individual self with total self - identity of jiiva aatma with paramaatma. For other two schools that identity is a blasphemy. That you do not see the contradictions in these school is your vision but from the point of the darshaNa-s, there are significant differences. Bhagavaan Ramanuja spends major part of his Shree Bhaashya in refuting advaita doctrine before he establishes his. Madhva vehemently criticizes advaita. At least these darshanika-s do not seem to agree with your conclusion. >I must confess that I am no expert on the Advaita >literature. Thus I would like to understand what the >advaita literature says on the following issue: > >Say a person meditates and reaches a state where >one is aware of just existence and bliss. When the >person comes out of this state into the world of >name and form, for a while the person lingers in >a very pleasant state, namely, established in the >Self, yet in the Vyavahara level. Does the Advaita >literature refer to this as the state of Saguna >Brahma ? I suspect this is the case. Shrinivas - before we go into details of your question, first I would like you to differentiate between experience and knowledge since your question starts with some experience. I will just summarize few general points for you to ponder. 1. Experience is not knowledge. 2. Experience is time bound and hence temporal. 3. Experience can be contradicted by another experience. 3. Experience need to be inquired into to arrive at true knowledge. 4. Knowledge involves analysis or inquiry into the experience. 5.True Knowledge resolves contradictions in experience. 6. True Knowledge cannot be contradicted. A word of caution - the above statements stem from my understanding and do not necessarily follow the epistemological analysis of our achaarya-s, since some emphasize experience as knowledge and cannot be contradicted while knowledge can be contradicted - in terms of brhama and prama. These depend on how one looks at. From my understanding the true knowledge is not contradictory - but there are relative knowledge and absolute knowledge. Relative knowledge is true in the relative sense (vyavahaarika level). Absolute knowledge is absolutely true. This is like classical mechanics and quantum mechanics - Quantum mechanics is not really contradictory to classical mechanics. But both are relatively true in their spheres of applicability. That is the nature of relative or vyavahaara. At the absolute level, the seer-seen distinctions, the experiencer-experienced distinctions all resolve into absolute - I am the totality or aham brahma asmi - which obviously includes the experiencer, the experienced and the experiencing -to form the totality. I am the totality is the knowledge not just the experience and that knowledge is gained by proper inquiry. This aspect was discussed in the discussions with Nanda. Hence to answer your question, in the state of experience you are in meditation, was there a gain of knowledge. One experiences Brahman all the time, even when one is not meditating and even when one does not have knowledge of what is Brahman, since there is nothing other than Brahman all the time. But that experience is far from the knowledge that I am that Brahman - is it not? So I do not have to do any special meditation to experience Brahman. It is not just the existence and bliss that is involved, it is the knowledge that I am that existence, consciousness and bliss. Bliss involves freedom from limitations and anantam eva ananadaH - infiniteness alone is happiness - I am that infiniteness should be the knowledge not just experience of bliss per sec. Because even in sensuous enjoyments too it is the same bliss that one experiences - vishayaanande brahma anandaH says Vidyaranya in his Panchadasi. Hence I will rephrase your question now - does the one who have the knowledge (I am using the term knowledge - it is the knowledge of the state of bliss that you have mentioned) when he looks at the world - does he have experience the plurality and does he have misunderstanding that the plurality is real. Now apply rule No. 6. True Knowledge cannot be contradicted. If he has the knowledge that there is nothing other than Brahman and he is that Brahman - aham brahma asmi - that knowledge can never be contradicted. He can still see the plurality and experience that plurality but he has no more misunderstanding that the plurality is reality. Let me give you an example. We all have learned from shaastra (science) that Sun neither raises in the morning nor sets in the evening - it is the earth's rotation that gives that illusion - is it not?. Now having gained that knowledge, we still experience the Sun raise and Sun set and many go all the way to Rameswaram to see the beautiful Sun raise and Sun set. Yet our daily experience of Sun raise and Sun set does not contradict our knowledge and even while experiencing we still know that the Sun that is setting is not really setting but appears to be setting. Hence he sees the plurality but does not take it as reality since they are in Him and not separate from him. Please read my discussions with Shree Nanda Chandran posted recently on these points. > Suppose, by >continued sadhana, the person prolongs the duration >for which he/she experiences this state. Further >suppose that the person reaches a point where, >the experience of this wonderful state never ceases. >The person has reached a spiritual maturity where >he/she can meditate and experiences the absolute >sat-cit-ananda state and once out of the meditation >the person experiences the relative sat-chit-ananda >state at vyavahara level, without ever falling into >confusion. Should this not be identical with jivan >mukti ? Does the Advaita literature say so ? Yes - please substitute for the word 'experience' with the word 'knowledge'. Once understood that who one is, there is no more misunderstanding that one is not one is. Yad gatvaana nivartante tat dhaama paramam mama - says Krishna - once you have reached my abode there is no returning back. This is true for jiivan mukta state since a jiivan mukta by definition has realized that he is Brahman and not this body, mind and intellect. They are in me but I am not them - is the true knowledge. sarva bhuutastam aatmaanam sarva bhuutani cha aatmani. - all are in me and I am in all of them. That is knowledge and not experience. Hence what achaarya-s advise us is to inquiry into the nature of Brahman not experience Brahman, since we do that all the time since there nothing other than Brahman all the time, even if we do not know that. I hope I have answered your questions and if there are still lingering doubts please do not hesitate to ask. Hari OM! Sadananda > >warmest regards >Shrinivas -- K. Sadananda Code 6323 Naval Research Laboratory Washington D.C. 20375 Voice (202)767-2117 Fax:(202)767-2623 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 21, 2001 Report Share Posted August 21, 2001 Namaste Shri Sadananda-ji, Thanks for your detailed reply. I will surely ponder over the ideas that you have mentioned. I notice that you emphasize knowledge more than experience, I will take it to mean knowledge which has been substantiated with experience. I gather, this is what you intend to mean by the term knowledge. Best regards Shrinivas Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Messenger http://phonecard./ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 21, 2001 Report Share Posted August 21, 2001 >Namaste Shri Sadananda-ji, > >Thanks for your detailed reply. I will surely >ponder over the ideas that you have mentioned. >I notice that you emphasize knowledge more than >experience, I will take it to mean knowledge which >has been substantiated with experience. I gather, >this is what you intend to mean by the term knowledge. > >Best regards >Shrinivas Yes that is what is also called vij~naana - - that is also what is implied as factual understanding since it is not understanding of 'some object' but understanding of ones own self. or understanding of the reality of the self. Hari Om! Sadananda > > > >Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Messenger ><http://phonecard./>http://phonecard./ > > Sponsor > ><http://rd./M=178320.1566800.3122525.1261774/D=egroupweb/S=1705075991:\ HM/A=766844/R=0/*http://www.fastweb.com/ib/-57f> > > > >Discussion of Shankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy of >nonseparablity of Atman and Brahman. >Advaitin List Archives available at: ><http://www.eScribe.com/culture/advaitin/>http://www.eScribe.com/culture/advait\ in/ >To Post a message send an email to : advaitin >Messages Archived at: ><advaitin/messages>\ advaitin/messages > > > >Your use of is subject to the ><> -- K. Sadananda Code 6323 Naval Research Laboratory Washington D.C. 20375 Voice (202)767-2117 Fax:(202)767-2623 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 21, 2001 Report Share Posted August 21, 2001 Namaste Shri Ramchandran-Ji, First of all I would like to thank you for taking your time to offer your thoughts on my questions. >Finally as one of the moderator, I honestly did not >see anything negative about your postings to the list >and the responses to your postings have been quite >positive. All of us in the list do not agree with >others' postings. The purpose of this list is better >served by Let me clarify what I meant by disappointment with responses to some of my postings. I have always wondered if the modern scientific approach to tackling the issues at the Vyavahara level is the best possible approach. Is it possible to complement the modern scientific approach with insights that one obtains from the Vedas ? Thus I have been approaching the Vedic knowledge from the Vyavahara level. Even a cursory look at the Vedic literature is sufficient to indicate that the Vedic point of view is significantly different from the modern scientific point of view. What I meant by disappointment is - a failure to stimulate some interest in discussing the Vedic perspective on a few issues pertaining to the Vyavahara level, from the point of view of Vedanta. Regards Shrinivas Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Messenger http://phonecard./ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 21, 2001 Report Share Posted August 21, 2001 | | K. Sadananda [sada] | <snip> | Shrinivas - before we go into details of your question, | first I would | like you to differentiate between experience and knowledge | since your | question starts with some experience. I will just summarize few | general points for you to ponder. | | 1. Experience is not knowledge. Experience of the absolute surpasses knowledge/ | 2. Experience is time bound and hence temporal. Experience of the absolute transcends all boundaries. | | 3. Experience can be contradicted by another experience. Experience of the absolute is irrefutable to those who have experienced it. | | 3. Experience need to be inquired into to arrive at true knowledge. Experience of the absolute needs no enquiry, just re-enforcing by extending that experience. | | 4. Knowledge involves analysis or inquiry into the experience. Analysis of experiential knowledge is counter-productive. | | 5.True Knowledge resolves contradictions in experience. True knowledge comes from experience of the absolute - ritam bhara | | 6. True Knowledge cannot be contradicted. Only when based on experience of the absolute. | Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 21, 2001 Report Share Posted August 21, 2001 Hari OM! Narayana Smrithis! Blessed Self, Where the Modern Science ends Vedanta Begins. With love & OM! Krishna Prasad --- Shrinivas Gadkari <sgadkari2001 wrote: > Namaste Shri Ramchandran-Ji, > > First of all I would like to thank you for taking > your time to offer your thoughts on my questions. > > >Finally as one of the moderator, I honestly did not > >see anything negative about your postings to the list > >and the responses to your postings have been quite > >positive. All of us in the list do not agree with > >others' postings. The purpose of this list is better > >served by > > Let me clarify what I meant by disappointment with > responses to some of my postings. I have always > wondered if the modern scientific approach to tackling > the issues at the Vyavahara level is the best possible > approach. Is it possible to complement the modern > scientific approach with insights that one obtains > from the Vedas ? Thus I have been approaching the > Vedic knowledge from the Vyavahara level. Even a > cursory look at the Vedic literature is sufficient to > indicate that the Vedic point of view is significantly > different from the modern scientific point of view. > What I meant by disappointment is - a failure to > stimulate some interest in discussing the Vedic > perspective on a few issues pertaining to the > Vyavahara level, from the point of view of Vedanta. > > Regards > Shrinivas > > > > Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with > Messenger > http://phonecard./ > Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Messenger http://phonecard./ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 21, 2001 Report Share Posted August 21, 2001 There is an overlap already. Quantum Mechanics is questioning normal observable Newtonian physics. The science of consciousness is next... | | Krishna Prasad [rkrishp99] | | Blessed Self, | | Where the Modern Science ends Vedanta Begins. | Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 21, 2001 Report Share Posted August 21, 2001 Namaste, This is where language fails us! Experience is termed " a-paroksha-anubhuuti ". The Absolute is the Subject, Consciousness, Self; it is NEVER an object that one can have an experience OF. As the Brihadaranyaka upanishad puts it: How can the knower be known? Regards, sunder advaitin, Brian Milnes <b.milnes@b...> wrote: > > > > Experience of the absolute surpasses knowledge/ > > > Experience of the absolute transcends all boundaries. > | > > Experience of the absolute is irrefutable to those who have experienced it. > | > > Experience of the absolute needs no enquiry, just re-enforcing by extending > that experience. > > | > > True knowledge comes from experience of the absolute - ritam bhara > | > Only when based on experience of the absolute. > | Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 22, 2001 Report Share Posted August 22, 2001 Sadananda wrote: > > > 1. Experience is not knowledge. Brian Milnes wrote: > > > > Experience of the absolute surpasses knowledge/ > > sunder wrote: > > This is where language fails us! ________________ hariH OM! it seems i post something about semantics every 6 months or so, but it's worthwhile repeating, because it can save so much energy and time, as well as avail the treasures of useful insight everyone on the homeward path is longing to find.. whenever one reads another's words, especially if hitherto unfamiliar with that author's writings, a subconscious process of assessing the nuances of meaning of the keywords involved takes place. this happens through various means to determine such (such as overall context of the discussion, certain words being used in conjunction with the keyword(s) in question...for example: coloquialisms, associated school(s) of thought or perceptive angle of a given philosophical interpretation, etc). how succesful one is in making that determination accurately, leads to manifold productive opportunities, not the least of which is the discovery of an insight, or--more commonly--the reinforcing of an existing one.. to say nothing of which a sense of solidarity, harmony, and thus a more unified community ensues.. the failure of same has all the opposite results, not the least of which is the waste of time and energy.. to say nothing of its potential in leading to despair, isolationism, sociopathic tendencies, even world wars! understanding the meanings of eachother's words is one the most important factors in the very structure of a civilization, from the individual to the collective. nothing less than an artform, effective communication is where all learning/teaching has the chance of either unfolding, stagnating or deteriorating.. namaste, frank Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 22, 2001 Report Share Posted August 22, 2001 >Sadananda wrote: > >> > > 1. Experience is not knowledge. > >Brian Milnes wrote: >> > >> > Experience of the absolute surpasses knowledge/ >> > > >sunder wrote: >> >> This is where language fails us! > >________________ > >hariH OM! > >it seems i post something about semantics every >6 months or so, but it's worthwhile repeating, >because it can save so much energy and time, as >well as avail the treasures of useful insight >everyone on the homeward path is longing to find.. > >whenever one reads another's words, especially if >hitherto unfamiliar with that author's writings, >a subconscious process of assessing the nuances >of meaning of the keywords involved takes place. Thanks Frank - You always step in right time! - I was about not to continue the thread since I saw it was more of semantics as you stated . From my perspective Shree Brian Miles and I not saying anything different and one has to be carefully in terms of semantics. If one looks at correctly my statement and Brian statement both are not incorrect. Obviously Brian statement "experience of the absolute surpasses knowledge is true as long it is not the knowledge of that absolute experience! The knowledge of that absolute experience is essentially what we need to get over the ignorance of that truth - since according to adhyaaasa it is the ignorance that is the root cause for samsaara and knowledge alone is antidote for ignorance. Brian statement is absolutely right if one compares the experience of absolute versus Knowledge of the phenomenal. One the other hand Brian is also right that intellectual knowledge can no way match the experience of the absolute. Knowledge as emphasized as true knowledge or absolute knowledge in the rest of my post and as well as in the discussions with Nanda is essentially the knowledge of that absolute experience that Brain is also emphasizing. Since there is not much I can add further to the subject, I stop here thanking you, Brian and Sunder for the inputs. Hari OM! Sadanadna -- K. Sadananda Code 6323 Naval Research Laboratory Washington D.C. 20375 Voice (202)767-2117 Fax:(202)767-2623 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 8, 2001 Report Share Posted November 8, 2001 G'Day. Been a while since I wrote. advaitin, egodust@d... wrote: > Sadananda wrote: > > > > > 1. Experience is not knowledge. > > Brian Milnes wrote: > > > > > > Experience of the absolute surpasses knowledge/ Dear Brian, I believe you have heard MMY speak of total Knowledge in one brain. Yes? Could this be called Veda? It is my opinion that the absolute is total Knowledge of a non conceptual Nature. > > > > > sunder wrote: > > > > This is where language fails us! I agree! > > ________________ > > hariH OM! > > it seems i post something about semantics every > 6 months or so, but it's worthwhile repeating, > because it can save so much energy and time, as > well as avail the treasures of useful insight > everyone on the homeward path is longing to find.. > > whenever one reads another's words, especially if > hitherto unfamiliar with that author's writings, > a subconscious process of assessing the nuances > of meaning of the keywords involved takes place. > > this happens through various means to determine such > (such as overall context of the discussion, certain > words being used in conjunction with the keyword(s) > in question...for example: coloquialisms, associated > school(s) of thought or perceptive angle of a given > philosophical interpretation, etc). > > how succesful one is in making that determination > accurately, leads to manifold productive opportunities, > not the least of which is the discovery of an insight, > or--more commonly--the reinforcing of an existing one.. > to say nothing of which a sense of solidarity, harmony, > and thus a more unified community ensues.. > > the failure of same has all the opposite results, not > the least of which is the waste of time and energy.. > to say nothing of its potential in leading to despair, > isolationism, sociopathic tendencies, even world wars! > > understanding the meanings of eachother's words is one > the most important factors in the very structure of a > civilization, from the individual to the collective. > > nothing less than an artform, effective communication > is where all learning/teaching has the chance of either > unfolding, stagnating or deteriorating.. Ahh yes, art. :-) G'Day Frank Loves to all, Colette > > namaste, > frank 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.