Guest guest Posted February 21, 2002 Report Share Posted February 21, 2002 Dear Warwick, You said: "Silence is not destroyed by sound, and if you listen in the right way you can always hear the silence, no matter how great the noise." You are quite right, of course, and I too recognise this from meditation - it is possible to reach the silence no matter what noise may be going on around one. Silence is the background for all sound and could be equated metaphorically with turIyA as the background for waking, sleep and dream states, in turn equated with the Self. So, my apologies for speaking without sufficient thought! Dear Srikrishna, You gave examples of trees growing on mountains and fires smoking. I got the impression you were trying to draw an analogy with the three possible conclusions made by Fox in my first post on the subject. However - apologies if I am being obtuse - I did not quite see the correspondence or appreciate your conclusion. I think the answer you are giving to my question is that an explanation (for me as a seeker) is not possible, which is what I expected. Incidentally, I would not have said that the world etc. was 'non-existent' for a realised soul. I would have said that the illusion remains but now the realised soul knows it to be an illusion whereas previously he had believed it to be real. Monier-Williams gives the meaning of atiprashna as 'an extravagant question; a question regarding transcendental objects'. So, yes, I'll go along with that - we are trying to understand the noumenal using our phenomenal mind and intellect. Incidentally, I received three copies of your email (but only read the first one). :>) Dear Madathil, More than happy to agree with you! Apologies for the word 'simplistic' - it wasn't intended to be derogatory. Please note I am not specifically recommending the Douglas Fox book. It is ok but there are many other books that I would recommend more highly. I was reading it because of a particular interest in the mANDUkyopaniShad. (I am still waiting for Sri Gummuluru Murthy to coordinate a discussion based on it, since I seem to recall that he was also very interested. Of course, having said that, I realise there is a danger that he might ask me to do it!) sukhaM chara, Dennis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 21, 2002 Report Share Posted February 21, 2002 - Dennis Waite advaitin Friday, February 22, 2002 2:10 AM RE: Whence adhyAsa Dear Warwick, You said: "Silence is not destroyed by sound, and if you listen in the right way you can always hear the silence, no matter how great the noise." You are quite right, of course, and I too recognise this from meditation - it is possible to reach the silence no matter what noise may be going on around one. Silence is the background for all sound and could be equated metaphorically with turIyA as the background for waking, sleep and dream states, in turn equated with the Self. So, my apologies for speaking without sufficient thought! Dear Dennis I am deeply touched by your gracious note. Thank you. Cheers Warwick Dear Orbitsville I looked up the website you mentioned, www.weiwuwei.k8.com and I remembered that Ramesh Balsekar talks about him and holds him in very high esteem. He was actually an Irishman! Isn't it a great website! I intend to go back there often. Cheers Warwick Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 22, 2002 Report Share Posted February 22, 2002 Dear Atmachaitanya, Many thanks for your extremely detailed and scholarly response to my query. It is all very interesting and I await your resolution of this seemingly insoluble problem with eager anticipation! I must say, however, that actually I *am* quite content with the answer that it is anirvachaniiya. I have had thoughts such as these in the past (though obviously not so rigorously analysed and stated) and I would then have been dismayed to find that others, far more knowledgeable than myself, had reached the same conclusions. Now I find that I have no problem with the idea that the mind/intellect is unable to comprehend the nature of reality. I have been totally convinced by Kant and Schopenhauer' arguments that this is quite impossible. All of the concepts that we use to interpret the 'world' are contrived and artificial (time, space, causation) and our senses are so arbitrary and limited - reality cannot be like that. All that we see is the mental or perceptual interpretation of whatever is 'outside', never the thing itself. And language is even more pathetically inadequate. If we cannot even describe the taste of a banana, how could we ever presume to talk about reality? It seems that, ultimately, we have to rely on faith (whilst still a seeker) or direct realisation (for the j~naani). I need to re-read your post (probably several times!) but at present am still unsure about this 'positive existant' state of avidya. It seems to me that it is a state of mind rather that a thing and mind, too, only has any status as a separate entity as a result of that state. It seems therefore that it does not have any positive existence and therefore could be destroyed by knowledge. (In the same way that light totally destroys the darkness, when the darkness only 'exists' by virtue of the absence of the light.) I am reluctant to use metaphors in a discussion such as this but, given the points above, it often seems the best way to approach an intuitive understanding. sukhaM chara, Dennis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 25, 2002 Report Share Posted February 25, 2002 namaste. I was thinking whether I should stand on the sidelines along with shri Harsha, shri Warwick and shri madathilnair or jump into the ring. I decided, at least for the moment, to jump in and express my views on the content of this thread. Shri Dennis asks whence adhyAsa and whose is the first adhyAsa? I understand the question as when did ignorance begin? We have discussed this many times. My understanding is: adhyAsa is from ignorance, and ignorance is anAdi, without beginning. Hence, when did ignorance begin cannot be answered. I have posted two or three articles on this quoting shri shankara's explanation of this from His shrilalitA trishatI bhAShya. I do not see any reason to question that explanation. Some one said in this discussion that avidyA is without end either. My understanding is: it is not so. Ignorance vanishes on the dawning of knowledge. Thus, although avidyA is without beginning, it has an end. We can consider the following analogy: Even with aparavidyA, sometimes we encounter confusion in understanding the subject. Later, after we understand the subject, what happened to the confusion? Confusion simply vanished. Sometimes we cannot even reconstruct this confusion after we understand the subject. Further, we cannot say when this confusion started. I am afraid I do not see Fox's points a, b, c as stated by shri Dennis in his original post and the comments on the three points also posted there. I do not see shri Atmacaitanyaji's expansion of these points either in his first post in this thread starting with the section (in his post) "opposed to reason' etc. I have difficulty understanding this "mUla avidyA". What is it? What way is it different from avidyA? If mUla avidyA means the beginning of avidyA, then I think that chasing mUla avidyA will be the most fruitless exercise. You *cannot* reach the origin of avidyA. It has no beginning. Please refer to "mAyA pa~ncakam" by shri shankara where each verse ends with catchy "tva ghaTita ghaTanA paTIyasI mAyA". I posted a rough translation of these five verses sometime ago. 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.