Save the World

[Guest guest]

Hi Dennis

 

Thanks for your reply. You say, "You must have heard all of this sort of stuff

before." I suppose I have, but when I'm reading or listening I tend to focus on

what might be capable of verification. I'm not hugely interested in building up

another cosmology that has to be accepted on someone else's say so, so I could

have heard all manner of stuff that just went in one ear and out the other. For

instance, you write, "I am", is real but the person is unreal.

Well, it is clear that "I" is not the person, but it is not totally clear what

the person is. Sometimes it's clear that the character part of the person is

largely a set of secondhand beliefs and attitudes, and they can be dropped

without too much difficulty and a sigh of relief. But it's not really clear that

the physical body, the physical world, are (is) also illusion and habit. I

regard it as a pretty good hypothesis. Something that a detective might regard

as a very hot lead. I have wrestled with quantum mechanics, which is very

difficult as my education in science stopped when I was 16, and I have also

wrestled with Bishop Berkeley's writings on reality and appearance, which is

similarly difficult, but none of that has produced the same clarity in regard to

the "world" as exists in relation to "who I am."

 

I have here a copy of the Astavakra Samhita with translation and commentary by

Nitya Swarupananda - is that the same (please forgive me if I get the upper

cases in the wrong places) as the Astavakra Gita?

 

And one more question, if you will. You quote "All enteritis are intrinsically

peaceful, unoriginated and perfectly free from anxiety. They are always the same

and are not different from each other. They are unborn, identical and perfect."

 

There is a difference between saying "there are two entities which are in every

respect identical" and "there is only one entity, and that entity is without

form or change, but it manifests itself in different forms." Which is the closer

understanding, that we are identical, or that we are one and the same?

 

Very warm regards

Warwick.

 

 

 

-

Dennis Waite

advaitin

Sunday, March 10, 2002 7:58 AM

Save the World

 

 

Hi Warwick,

Glad you found the adhyAsa page. The essence of this is really the answer to

the question you are now asking. Whenever we start asking about so-called

problems with 'ourselves' or 'the world' it is because we are mixing up the

real and the unreal. 'I am' is real; 'a person' is unreal. 'There is' is

real; 'the world' is unreal. There is only the Self - and that is ultimately

all that can be said. All the rest is arguing about the illusion - and the

illusion is bound to look different when filtered through differing sets of

opinions and beliefs. And no matter what we think about the illusion, it is

certain to be wrong. (If it comes to that, whatever we think about reality

is going to be wrong, too, since this is beyond words and concepts.) Since

there is only Consciousness, it must, by definition, be perfect. Since there

is nothing else, how could it not be?

As far as 'actions' go, what does this concept mean? There is no free will

because there are no 'individuals' to exercise such a thing. And so on...

You must have heard all of this sort of stuff before. If you want the

authority of a Sage, you can't do much better than Krishna Menon. If you

want scriptures, the aShTAvakra gItA is one of my own favourites. But if you

want the pramANa of the shruti, the mANDUkyopanishad with gauDapAda's kArikA

is the best I am aware of. "Everything should be known to be, by nature,

without a beginning, like space. No multiplicity exists anywhere.All

entitities are intrinsically peaceful, unoriginated and perfectly free from

anxiety. They are always the same and are not different from each other.

They are unborn, identical and perfect." (Two sutras from the last section

almost at random.)

sukhaM chara,

Dennis

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Hi Warwick,

< Well, it is clear that "I" is not the person, but it is not totally clear

what the person is.

It's not at all clear, is it? The person is a mask and we wear a different

one in different situations. None of it has anything to with who we really

are, just as the role in a play has nothing to do with the real nature of a

good actor.

< But it's not really clear that the physical body, the physical world, are

(is) also illusion and habit.

This aspect is a lot more difficult to accept but it becomes intuitively

obvious the more we think about it. The body and world are constantly

changing yet we, the Consciousness that seems to perceive these 'things'

remains always the same.

One recent development in genetics struck a chord for me. You've probably

heard about the experiments going on at the moment in the UK, the outcome of

which is so eagerly awaited by Christopher Reeves. You take a female human

egg and extract the (woman's contribution to the) DNA. You then take a male

cell and extract its complete set of chromosomes (i.e. with DNA already made

up from female and male halves) and implant it into the female cell. You

then wait for it to reproduce. If it does, and you allow it to grow to

maturity, you end up with a clone of the male donor, as in Dolly the sheep.

(In fact, the purpose is to stop it after a week or two and use the stem

cells to grow new tissue in the part of the donor's body that is diseased.)

The thought that occurred to me is 'where does the Consciousness come from

for this effectively new human? Of course, the same question applies to any

natural conception and birth but here there is no fertilisation etc. and the

result is a genetically identical body. It seemed to me that this sort of

thinking could lead quite easily to an understanding that there is only one

Consciousness and all of this apparent process of birth, death etc. etc. is

all just a perceived movement within it. As a result of adhyAsa, this

process is perceived as being something 'other' when all is in fact One.

<I have here a copy of the Astavakra Samhita with translation and commentary

by Nitya Swarupananda - is that the same (please forgive me if I get the

upper cases in the wrong places) as the Astavakra Gita?>

Yep, that's the one. Moreover, that particular version I think is excellent.

<There is a difference between saying "there are two entities which are in

every respect identical" and "there is only one entity, and that entity is

without form or change, but it manifests itself in different forms." Which

is the closer understanding, that we are identical, or that we are one and

the same?>

The latter. Swami Mikhilananda's translation of the same mantra is: "All

dharmas or jIvas are from the beginning and by their very nature, all peace,

unborn and completely free. They are characterised by sameness and are

non-separate from one another. Therefore the jIvas are Atman unborn, always

established in 'sameness' and 'purity' itself." I'm not sure of the literal

Sanskrit here. Chinmayaynanda seems to translate 'dharmaH' as 'egocentric

entities'. (Which brings me back to an earlier point of wanting the literal

meaning before hearing someone else's understanding of it.)

All the best,

Dennis

[Guest guest]

Hullo Dennis

 

thanks for sending this. It is very clear. Just what I wanted.

 

Cheers

Warwick

-

Dennis Waite

advaitin

Monday, March 11, 2002 8:12 AM

RE: Save the World

 

 

Hi Warwick,

< Well, it is clear that "I" is not the person, but it is not totally clear

what the person is.

It's not at all clear, is it? The person is a mask and we wear a different

one in different situations. None of it has anything to with who we really

are, just as the role in a play has nothing to do with the real nature of a

good actor.

< But it's not really clear that the physical body, the physical world, are

(is) also illusion and habit.

This aspect is a lot more difficult to accept but it becomes intuitively

obvious the more we think about it. The body and world are constantly

changing yet we, the Consciousness that seems to perceive these 'things'

remains always the same.