Guest guest Posted September 8, 2001 Report Share Posted September 8, 2001 Another problem I'm afraid. I don't know whether you have noticed or not but, sometimes, people who have no prior knowledge of this philosophy sometimes come up with apparently naïve questions that are ever so difficult to answer! The same reviewer of my book that prompted the last question also asked the following: If 'we' are the Self, why don't we experience each other's feelings, pain etc.? On the face of it, quite straightforward but I am getting very bogged down trying to formulate a logical response to this. My attempt so far is as follows: "We are not a 'person'. In our ignorance, we mistakenly superimpose various concepts such as bodies, minds, roles, etc. upon the reality of the one Self, just as in the dark, we mistakenly superimpose the image of a snake on the rope. This is the process of adhyasa and it explains how it is that each of us believes himself/herself to be a separate individual. The bodies and minds, thoughts and feelings, are only names and forms within the one undifferentiated reality. That which, in ignorance, is called 'I' is attachment of the Self to one set of body-mind-intellect, with its associated ideas, feelings and perceptions. That which, in ignorance, is called 'you' (by me) is identification with another set. Both are mistakes - there is, in reality, only one. Whilst I believe I am this set and you believe you are that set, we feel ourselves to be separate. But, whilst the enlightened sage knows that there is only One, this does not mean that he is aware of our thoughts and feelings." Any help in completing this satisfactorily would be much appreciated! I keep wanting to say such patently stupid things as 'I identify with one set of thoughts while you identify with a different set. Though the sage identifies with none, this does not mean that he can be aware of ours.' Is it simply the confusion of vyavahara and paaramaarthika again? Dennis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 8, 2001 Report Share Posted September 8, 2001 advaitin, "Dennis Waite" <dwaite@d...> wrote: > > The same reviewer of my book that prompted the last question also asked the > following: If 'we' are the Self, why don't we experience each other's > feelings, pain etc.? > Namaste. Here is my 2cents again. I am of an opinion that there are no feelings or experience in paaramaarthika. Feelings and experiences are applicable only in vyavahara. The Self in paaramaarthika thus simply is. Question remains. Why we don't experience then in vyavahara. I have a suspicion that we do. For example, sometimes, based on past experience, we know what a kid is upto and this may be called experiencing of others' feelings. Question still remains. Why we don't experience all the time. I also agree that this is due to our excessive identification with a finite 'I' thus cutting off the free- flowing commonality. By the way, it occurred to many people that they experienced the feelings of Jesus at the cross thousands of years later. Here feelings and thoughts it seems are going into a repository somewhere from which one can extract them anytime, thus implying that the joy experienced by Mozart in composing his symphonies can be experienced by anybody later on ?? Kind regards, Raghava Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 8, 2001 Report Share Posted September 8, 2001 The following points appear to me. 1. Everything that is perceived by you is a product of your mind. Hence even if you mind-read, it is only your mind that you are reading. 2. By our mistaken identity due to our ego, we think of others as separate from us. Our clouded minds thus imagine sufferings or pleasures for the "others" in the same way as it is with us. But this reasoning is false. Whatever you have perceived as happening (or not happening) to the others is a work of your mind. 3. The others are also a part of your thoughts only. Before you see anything happening to the others, that thought must be there in your mind. In short you see yourself everywhere. This is how I would understand it. If it is wrong, please correct me. Anand > The same reviewer of my book that prompted the last > question also asked the > following: If 'we' are the Self, why don't we > experience each other's > feelings, pain etc.? > "We are not a 'person'. In our ignorance, we > mistakenly superimpose various > concepts such as bodies, minds, roles, etc. upon the > reality of the one > Self, just as in the dark, we mistakenly superimpose > the image of a snake on > the rope. This is the process of adhyasa and it > explains how it is that each > of us believes himself/herself to be a separate > individual. The bodies and > minds, thoughts and feelings, are only names and > forms within the one > undifferentiated reality. That which, in ignorance, > is called 'I' is > attachment of the Self to one set of > body-mind-intellect, with its > associated ideas, feelings and perceptions. That > which, in ignorance, is > called 'you' (by me) is identification with another > set. Both are mistakes - > there is, in reality, only one. Whilst I believe I > am this set and you > believe you are that set, we feel ourselves to be > separate. But, whilst the > enlightened sage knows that there is only One, this > does not mean that he is > aware of our thoughts and feelings." > > Get email alerts & NEW webcam video instant messaging with Messenger http://im. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 9, 2001 Report Share Posted September 9, 2001 >"Dennis Waite" <dwaite >If 'we' are the Self, why don't we experience each other's >feelings, pain etc.? This question has the validity only if we understand that ' we are the self' - as a fact and not as a thought. Second we experience our pains and feelings in the waking and dream states but not in the deep sleep state where we are in our own nature ' ourselves' - Once I understood that I am the ocean, what is my attitude in terms of the modifications that occurring in the waves? birth, growth, disease and death of differnt waves - the pains and trabulations of different waves - what is the 'experience' of the ocean for these. Hence Krishna says : they are in me but I am not in them -in the sense none of these belong to me - they belong only to naama and ruupa - or names and forms. Is it simply >the confusion of vyavahara and paaramaarthika again? In a way - yes. confusion of unity verses diversity - Unity at the absolute level - I am the self - everything is in one self and one self in everything. - you and me etc are diversity only at the vyavahaara level. One we know we are the self - then everthing is as Krishna says - See my glory - the ocean can declare - all wavers are in me and I am not in them - see my glory. - the gold can say I am there in all ornaments but the ornaments are not in me in the sense that their individual suffering that comes with the identification with forms and names - do not belong to me - they are not in me. Look at my glory. To answer precisely only we turn to scriptures since we cannot completely relay on - some X, Y, Z experiences - as the basis of truth. Hari OM! Sadananda >Dennis _______________ 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 September 9, 2001 Report Share Posted September 9, 2001 > To answer precisely only we turn to scriptures since we cannot >completely > relay on - some X, Y, Z experiences - as the basis of truth. > > Hari OM! > Sadananda > Namsate Shri Sadananda-Ji, I hope you will excuse me for bringing up this topic again. I am sure this is again just a confusion related to the use of terminology. Scriptures are in fact records of experience hence it is somewhat incorrect to say that one cannot rely on some X,Y,Z experiences - as the basis of truth. Each experience has hidden within it an aspect of Vedas. However depending on the clarity of thought of the individual there is a varying amount of confusion that clouds this element of Shruti contained in every experience. Thus it is possible to treat EACH AND EVERY experience as a basis of truth, provided one has the ability to separate confusion and the message of Shruti contained in each experience. Warmest regads Shrinivas Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 9, 2001 Report Share Posted September 9, 2001 > > To answer precisely only we turn to scriptures since we cannot >>completely >> relay on - some X, Y, Z experiences - as the basis of truth. >> >> Hari OM! >> Sadananda >> > >Namsate Shri Sadananda-Ji, > >I hope you will excuse me for bringing up this topic again. >I am sure this is again just a confusion related to the use of >terminology. > >Scriptures are in fact records of experience hence it is >somewhat incorrect to say that one cannot rely on some >X,Y,Z experiences - as the basis of truth. Each experience >has hidden within it an aspect of Vedas. However depending >on the clarity of thought of the individual there is a >varying amount of confusion that clouds this element of >Shruti contained in every experience. Thus it is possible to >treat EACH AND EVERY experience as a basis of truth, provided >one has the ability to separate confusion and the message of >Shruti contained in each experience. > >Warmest regads >Shrinivas > Shrinivas - Greetings. There was some discussion related to this topic sometime last year between Dennis and myself in relation to Ch. II of my notes on BSB when we were discussing about pramaaNa aspects. In principle what you say is right. In all these pramaaNa-s there is an element of faith involved. If one does not believe in Vedanta as pramaaNa or as valid means of knowledge then my reference to those scriptures will not have any bearing. For that to be valid pramaaNa we both have to have faith that it is telling us the truth. We consider Veda-s as apaurusheya. - We discussed this aspect in terms naastika and aastika theories where shaastra anumaana or laukika anumaana is used to prove or disprove a theory. I can instead quote the experience of say my teacher but that may not mean much to others who do not consider him as their teacher. It becomes one word against the other. Hence we go for a common or accepted pramaaNa - traditionally and culturally. All our masters have taken Veda-s as pramaaNa and no one denies that. Only the interpretations are different. That which is scriptural as well as logical and that which your teacher is also confirmed becomes the final pramaaNa or working hypothesis to proceed further. Hence Shankara defines faith - as - shaastrasya guru vaakyasya satya bhudhya avadhaarana - faith is that the words of the shaastra-s and the interpretation of that shaastra by the teacher are indeed true - .. Ultimately a correct teacher is one who directs his disciples to shaastra and not to himself. He would say - this is right only because shaastra-s confirm it and not that this is right because I confirm it. 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 September 10, 2001 Report Share Posted September 10, 2001 On Sat, 8 Sep 2001, Dennis Waite wrote: > > The same reviewer of my book that prompted the last question also asked the > following: If 'we' are the Self, why don't we experience each other's > feelings, pain etc.? > namaste. My response to this would be the following: We do experience each other's pains, feelings etc. If you love someone deeply and feel unision with that entity, the pains and feelings of one are indeed the pains and feelings of the other. Lack or non-recognition of that unity creates the feeling of the apparent difference in the feelings of pains and joys. A wise man is above these feelings and is not tormented by them. Yet, in answer to the specific question, I would say the non-recognition of the sameness, and the different levels of love we feel to the other (because of ignorance) results in the different levels of our response. > [...] > Dennis > Regards Gummuluru Murthy ------ 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.