Scriptures and truth

[Guest guest]

Namaste!

 

All scriptures are a mixture of the human and the divine. Even the

Upanishads have peculiarities that are of no use to the spiritual

path. (At least they have no unkind thoughts!)

 

The main point is that we should never blindly follow every (or even

any) word of a scripture, especially if we are selective in our

choice of those words. And then there is the vexed problem of

interpretation...

 

But I would like to point out that there is a peculiar kind of

'political correctness' floating around these days, especially among

well-meaning educated people who should know better: a tendency to

project what they would like to believe upon a religion, without

actually reading the scriptures. An honest examination of the texts

may reveal a few surprises. Therefore, it is good if from time to

time someone rings a bell to shake us from our complacency.

 

Even Advaitins can be seduced by the pleasure of making our

conscience feel good by simply assuming that some aspects of the

world are how we would like it to be, not how they actually are. The

dark side of religion may not be appropriate for this list, but I

implore everyone always to seek the TRUTH and to make no comfortable

assumptions about anything.

 

If Hinduism did not incorporate the spirit of skeptical inquiry, then

I would have nothing to do with it. But I know that is hardly the

case. On the contrary, only Hinduism is so breathtakingly bold and

honest as to wonder if perhaps God does not know everything, as in

the last line of the Hymn of Creation below. This kind of open mind

and unabashed skepticism is how the REAL truth is discovered. Those

with a more pious approach to religion prefer, on the contrary, to

entertain a self-serving caricature of God and to have their brains

programmed for them by some book or institution, so they are spared

the burden of thinking and perhaps abandoning cherished beliefs.

 

There ... I believe that noble sentiment falls within the guidelines

of this list !!!

 

 

 

VEDIC HYMN OF CREATION (Rig Veda)

 

There was neither non-existence nor existence then.

There was neither the realm of space nor the sky which is beyond.

What stirred?

Where?

In whose protection?

Was there water, bottomlessly deep?

 

There was neither death nor immortality then.

There was no distinguishing sign of night nor of day.

That One breathed, windless, by its own impulse.

Other than that there was nothing beyond.

 

Darkness was hidden by darkness in the beginning,

with no distinguishing sign, all this was water.

The life force that was covered with emptiness,

that One arose through the power of heat.

 

Desire came upon that One in the beginning,

that was the first seed of mind.

Poets seeking in their heart with wisdom

found the bond of existence and non-existence.

 

Their cord was extended across.

Was there below?

Was there above?

There were seed-placers, there were powers.

There was impulse beneath, there was giving forth above.

 

Who really knows?

Who will here proclaim it?

Whence was it produced?

Whence is this creation?

The gods came afterwards, with the creation of this universe.

Who then knows whence it has arisen?

 

Whence this creation has arisen

- perhaps it formed itself, or perhaps it did not -

the One who looks down on it,

in the highest heaven, only He knows

or perhaps He does not know.

 

 

Om!

Benjamin

[Guest guest]

advaitin, Benjamin Root <orion777ben@y> Who

then knows whence it has arisen?

>

> Whence this creation has arisen

> - perhaps it formed itself, or perhaps it did not -

> the One who looks down on it,

> in the highest heaven, only He knows

> or perhaps He does not know.

>

>

> Om!

> Benjamin

 

Namaste,

 

Yes of course Nirguna doesn't know, for knowing is Avidya and

unreal....ONS...Tony.

[Guest guest]

Namaste Tony,

>Yes of course Nirguna doesn't know, for knowing

>is Avidya and unreal....ONS...Tony.

 

 

Now that's a thought ... I mean not-a-thought ... whatever ... !!!

 

Just kidding, I like what you just said ... it is thought-provoking

.... NOT !!! :-)

 

I do like it. You're right, if interpreted properly, i.e. in terms

of knowing as subject/object.

 

But from another point of view, if Brahman is Being, Truth and

Consciousness, then it has (or rather IS) the instantaneous nondual

(non subject/object) realization of All. That is the higher

'knowing'.

 

Om!

Benjamin

[Guest guest]

advaitin, Benjamin Root <orion777ben>

wrote:

>

>

> Namaste Tony,

>

> >Yes of course Nirguna doesn't know, for knowing

> >is Avidya and unreal....ONS...Tony.

>

>

> Now that's a thought ... I mean not-a-thought ...

whatever ... !!!

>

> Just kidding, I like what you just said ... it is thought-provoking

> ... NOT !!! :-)

>

> I do like it. You're right, if interpreted properly, i.e. in terms

> of knowing as subject/object.

>

> But from another point of view, if Brahman is Being, Truth and

> Consciousness, then it has (or rather IS) the instantaneous nondual

> (non subject/object) realization of All. That is the higher

> 'knowing'.

>

> Om!

> Benjamin

 

Namaste Benji,

 

Sat-Cit-Ananada only describes Saguna Brahman which is also

unreal....ONS...Tony.

[Guest guest]

Nameste Sri Benjaminji!

 

One has to love it when it seems like you are attempting to outhindu the Hindus!

:-).

 

Here is some information for your further investigation since you have such a

wonderfully curious and open mind. Take it for its worth to you.

 

I think Carl Sagan said that the only major religion that focuses on nonviolence

as the cardinal principle in the East is Jainism (although I think the Jains

like Buddhists may be considered Nastiks). Nastik, of course, does not mean

nasty but agnostic or atheist.

 

Ironically, Mahatama Gandhi, a Hindu and a staunch believer in nonviolence and a

follower of Bhagavad Gita (which he interpreted symbolically and not literally)

was influenced greatly by a Jain teacher (a Nastik!).

 

As a side note, although he is a great soul and an admired world figure. during

his time, many Hindus did not like Mahatama Gandhi much or his emphasis on the

philosophy of nonviolence.

 

The major practical texts in Yoga and Advaita, however, clearly state that

Ahimsa is the first principle on the spiritual path.

 

For example in Patanjali's yoga sutras, Ahimsa is listed before Brahmacharya.

 

Ultimately one has to develop one's discriminating faculty and use one's

intelligence.

 

The essence of the Advaita is very simple. There are many who feel that Sri

Aurbindo, while a great yogi and a much admired personality, did not fully grasp

that essence.

 

Love to all

Harsha

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

advaitin, wrote:

> Nameste Sri Benjaminji!

>

> One has to love it when it seems like you are attempting to >

> Ultimately one has to develop one's discriminating faculty and use

one's intelligence.

>

> The essence of the Advaita is very simple. There are many who feel

that Sri Aurbindo, while a great yogi and a much admired personality,

did not fully grasp that essence.

>

> Love to all

> Harsha

 

Namaste,

 

Yes that's right the Jains are the only ones who seem to actually

pracise the virtue of Ahimsa, to the letter.

Sri Aurobindo was much into bringing the Divine into man instead of

the reverse. He was much given to vibrations and integral yoga, and

not like Krishna at all. Although he did believe that on the 23 nov,

1926 Krishna Consciosness descended into himself, but even then he

didn't feel he was fully accomplished. I don't think that Sri

Aurobindo taught Advaita.........ONS.....Tony/

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sris Harsha and Tony!

>The major practical texts in Yoga and Advaita, however,

>clearly state that Ahimsa is the first principle on the

>spiritual path.

>

>The essence of the Advaita is very simple. There are many

>who feel that Sri Aurbindo, whilea great yogi and a much

>admired personality, did not fully grasp that essence.

>

>I don't think that Sri Aurobindo taught Advaita

 

 

The question of ahimsa is very difficult. But I think we can safely

say that the world clearly operates in such a way that unconditional

pacifism is irresponsible and immoral. I used to have pacifist

tendencies, because of my horror of physical injury (not so much of

death which will hopefully turn out to be liberation for most of us).

But as I grew older and learned more about how the world really is,

and how depraved people can be, my brain forced me to be more

conscientious about resisting evil and ignorance. (Whether I have

the personal courage is another question.)

 

I think the question of ahimsa is quite relevant to this list, since

Advaita is one of those 'otherwordly' spiritual paths, like Jainism

and most forms of Buddhism, which tend sharply in the pure ahimsa

direction. This could almost be considered a danger of Advaita.

 

My main point in the previous messages, however, is that whether we

adhere to pure ahimsa or not, we must certainly be honest and

intelligent about how people actually are. This may sometimes mean

criticizing people, perhaps even large groups of people, if

necessary. This must be done purely objectively and factually and

without personal rancor or contempt.

 

The message of the Gita, as I understand it, is that we can carry out

our kshatriya duty, if that is our lot, without leaving the realm of

advaita. We can achieve supreme inner peace in the midst of battle

and still see God in all, even our enemies. Everything is then

recognized as an illusion and a manifestation of Consciousness. It

is actually a rather awesome vision. This vision of advaita can

encompass all personal situations and duties to society.

 

However, I also think that it is good for society to have one group

of pure souls (usually monks and the like) preaching pure ahimsa

while another kshatriya group carries out its duties to defend

dharma. One of the defects of modern democracy, in my opinion, is

the tendency to fit everyone into the same mold. It is not

inconsistent, in the larger scheme of things, for different people to

be giving different messages.

 

Sri Aurobindo was perhaps not truly Advaitin. But nobody can doubt

his devotion to the Vedas nor his personal spiritual experiences.

The image of Arjuna and Krishna defending Dharma with force is

consistent with Aurobindo's more vigorous and sober attitude

regarding material existence. That is fully consistent with the

Vedas and the Gita if not with the many forms of Advaita. There are

many surprises in the Vedas. Those people seem to have been a bit

more red-blooded than many modern caricatures of Hinduism. I would

like to repeat a very valuable link which I mentioned earlier and

which I am beginning to explore with considerable interest:

 

http://www.himalayanacademy.com/books/vedic_experience/VEIndex.html

 

Finally, as for being 'more Hindu than the Hindus', I hope I do not

appear too ridiculous. Mostly I am pursuing all kinds of thoughts

and insights in my imagination. I am fully aware that true

realization is of an altogether higher order. But I also feel that

sincere inquiry within the realm of imagination can serve as a kind

of 'embryo' for the later more complete realization. Blessed list

members who drag me back down to earth from time to time are doing me

a great service. Thank you.

 

Om!

Benjamin