Guest guest Posted October 2, 2003 Report Share Posted October 2, 2003 Namaste all, I have been trying to follow the discussions going on in the electronic forum with regard to “Existence of Objects”. Quite frankly, I must confess, being a person with no knowledge of science, I am not able to understand much of them as most of the discussions center around scientific theories such as relativity etc. However, from advaita point of view I hope the learned members would not mind my “understanding” on the subject. When we talk of “objects” what exactly we mean by this word? In this context, I think we should also take into account the “existence of the subject itself” which observes the “existence of the objects” outside. Both, i.e. Objects and Subject, “swakAle astivad bhAti” only, i.e. their existence looks real during the particular “state” in which Jeeva shines as the subject. Keeping in mind that all the three “states” are swallowed by Turiya, where exactly we should draw the line separating the objects from the subject, “idam” and “aham”? Is there, from Paramartha, a “subject”? I quote Kaivvalya Upanishad Mantra: “jAgrath, swapna, sushupthAdi prapancham yad prakAshathe, “that brahma aham” iti gnAtwaA sarva bandhai: pramuchyathe” Jeeva, who observes the objects outside it, is illumined by that Light, and therefore the Jeeva itself shines as an object with its intellect, mind and body. “tasya bhasa sarvam idam bhati” this idam includes Jeeva also i.e. Jeeva with Ahambhava and Ahamkara. Because of this Ahambhava and Ahamkara, there are many Jeevas and all the Jeevas observe the subjects with their preconceived notions and in most cases the perception takes place of the objects are not the same for all the Jeevas. When the Ahambhava and Ahamkara aspect is not there in Jeeva, i.e. individuality of the particular Jeeva, like in deep sleep, there is no perception of objects for that particular Jeeva but for other Jeevas, which are not in deep sleep, the objects do exist. When a particular Jeeva gets enlightened with self-knowledge, the objects do not disappear and they do exist, but the perception of the objects that take place in the enlightened Jeeva is recognition of the fact that objects are manifestation of Brahman or consciousness or chaitanyam, including the Jeeva, though they appear in different forms with different names. “tat brahmA aham iti knowledge” is not a piece of knowledge like the knowledge that takes place to the knower about the objects. This is just recognition of a fact. However, non-recognition of this fact is “mahatI nashtaha” because the result of this recognition is what all Jeevas are striving for, i.e. Anandam. On rising of self-knowledge, what exactly happens is that the notion of the vastu and the experience from that vastu, disappears, and knowledge i.e. recognition of the vastu takes place, i.e. such experiences are real per se, but passing shows. If one, on rising of self-knowledge, is looking for the vastu or the objects to disappear, there will be great disappointment. The discussions on Creation, existence or non-existence of objects, mithyatwam of objects, etc. etc. are just for the purpose of unfolding the swaroopa of Self, and once the purpose is served, they are not very important. With all respects to the learned members of the group, I would like to say a few more words on the subject. **<<if you see what shri narayana bhattathri saw in broad daylight in front of lord guruvayoorappan,can it be called illusion no. it was the actual thing he saw in front of his eyes that is why he could compose it into a song, so that we all can believe it. when he said "agre pasyami" i am seeing it in front of me. you cant call it illusion. for that matter when arjuna said "pasyami devan" can you call it illusion. no. the objects exist for material world for those beyond only god exists and he cant be brought in to the gambit of scientific objects.we cant even compare the vision of god into dream or awakening from dream etc.no one dreams of god, he actually sees him.>>** Pashyami though means “seeing” the lakshyartha is knowing (just like, Darshan means vision but not vision taking place through the physical eyes, but it is knowing or understanding the “object”) Ramakrishna Paramahansa, it is said, used to have not only vision of Kali, but he used to converse with Her and also feed her, etc. These are all “subjective experiences” and we cannot universalize them. There is a fundamental principle being taught to the students of Vedanta i.e. “Yad drushyam, tad nashyam”. So, the moment one sees (objectifies) any thing, even Lord Guruvayoorappa or Lord Krishna or Kali, etc. what one “sees” so, are all Anatma, as they do not have independent existence. Can one who has never heard of these deities, have such visions? For example, I have never come across a Christian having vision of any of these deities, though he may have the vision of Lord Jesus Christ. My understanding is, Vedanta does not ask one to deny such experiences, but not to take them as real, as they depend on the “subject” backed by notions gathered all through about the objects, even the Lord, when he objectifies Him, i.e. Jeeva being the subject, “limited consciousness of Jeeva” (It is absolutely wrong to say “limited consciousness” as consciousness, being Poornam, can never be limited by anything, though what appears to “exist” (better still the manifestations of consciousness) in consciousness, can limit each other, i.e. Desha, Kala and Vastu). THE PURPOSE OF SAYING ALL THESE IS NOT TO DENY THE IMPORTANCE AND PLACE OF SUCH THINGS HAPPEN/OR SUCH VISIONS ETC. TO ONE, ON HIS JOURNEY TO REACH WHAT HE IS REALLY LOOKING FOR. They have their own places. In this context I remember a very interesting story told by Swamiji. There was a very great Vishnu Bhakta and he was yearning for Darshan of the Lord even for a second. Somehow he was taken to Vaikhunda and was placed before the Lord shining with all his glittering ornaments, pitambara, shankh, chakra, gada etc., etc. The question is how long this Bhakta will stand before the Lord. He will see the front portion of the Lord for some time, then sides, backside etc. and he will do Namaskar again again, he will even sing songs in praise of the Lord, but all these how long? One hour or two hour? After sometime he will naturally get fed up with it even when it is Lord for whose “Darshan” (physically seeing) he was yearning all the life. Then he may look for a cup of coffee! Why is it so? Because Jeeva cannot stand dwaita, as it has some sort of idea of its being Poornam, though due to ignorance, it is searching that Poornatwa in objects, including its body, mind and intellect. That is why on recognition of self-knowledge what is happening is “ praptasya praptam” The idea is what we are striving for is not for such experiences from objects. We are actually striving for the (Parama Purushartha) inherent Poornatwa, and until that is recognized, there is no rest and one will continue to be unhappy though he may taste happiness now and then from his own notions. The message of Vedanta is not to reject anything, but Vedanta results in acceptance of everything as That Ultimate Reality, though appearing in diverse forms with diverse names etc. I know I need to be corrected and hope the learned members can throw “light” wherever required /on whatever I have mentioned above. Pardon me for this rather long posting. With Hari Om The New with improved product search Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 3, 2003 Report Share Posted October 3, 2003 At 10:36 PM 10/2/2003 -0700, R.S.MANI wrote: >When we talk of “objects” what exactly we mean by this word? In this context, I think we should also take into account the “existence of the subject itself” which observes the “existence of the objects” outside. All this talk about subject and object reflects the residues of the Western tradition. Substance/attribute were big topics for Plato and Aristotle, as subject/object were for Berkeley and Kant. Thinking of these as major categories is a habitual mind habit for those steeped in this tradition, as I was, maybe Ben too. >Both, i.e. Objects and Subject, “swakAle astivad bhAti” only, i.e. their existence looks real during the particular “state” in which Jeeva shines as the subject. Keeping in mind that all the three “states” are swallowed by Turiya, where exactly we should draw the line separating the objects from the subject, “idam” and “aham”? Is there, from Paramartha, a “subject”? I quote Kaivvalya Upanishad Mantra: > >“jAgrath, swapna, sushupthAdi prapancham yad prakAshathe, > >“that brahma aham” iti gnAtwaA sarva bandhai: pramuchyathe” > >Jeeva, who observes the objects outside it, is illumined by that Light, and therefore the Jeeva itself shines as an object with its intellect, mind and body. This is a beautiful insight. To see that the Jeeva is not the seer, but is itself illumined by the Light, as Light. What is mistakenly regarded as the illuminator is understood as itself illumined, and as actually not different from the Light itself. Hari OM! --Greg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 3, 2003 Report Share Posted October 3, 2003 At 01:14 PM 10/3/2003 +0000, Madathil Rajendran Nair wrote: Namaste Gregji. Probably I missed to include Shri Ananda Wood's post and my comments thereto in my last mail to you. Here it is. Got it, thanks. Some commentary follows: ========================================= Madathil wrote: [space being the separation between objects (Can there be space without objects?) and objects being the subject of observation, we have to conclude that space is also made evident by light. Then, don't we have to think that LIGHT IS, SPACE AND ITS ELECTROMAGNETIC PROPERTIES ARE.] ==========Question. You say "LIGHT IS, SPACE AND ITS ELECTROMAGNETIC PROPERTIES ARE." Later, you say, "PRAKASHA IS, AAKASHA IS? It cannot be: AKASHA IS, PRAKASHA IS." When you say "X is, Y is," do you mean to say that X exists before Y? I'll proceed as if that's what you mean. Akasha: ======= One of the creation mentions akasha. In the panchikarana or quintuplication of elements, gross ether (akasha) comes to exist from subtle ether. (http://acharya.iitm.ac.in/mirrors/vv/scripture/vedanta/vtca14a.html) (http://www.crvp.org/book/Series03/IIIB-4/chapter_two.htm) So we can say that ether or akasha, as an element, exists. But Prakasha - illumination, clarity, consciousness: ==================================================== Prakasha, as clarity, illumination, consciousness, is a not the kind of thing about which you can say "It exists" or "it doesn't exist." That is, it's a category mistake to apply the predicate "exists" to Prakasha. Rather, the predicate "exists" just doesn't apply to Prakasha. To say that Prakasha exists, would be to say that there's a universe in which it is present - as though it just might have been absent in the universe. But Prakasha is the sum and substance of the universe. So I wouldn't say that Prakasha "exists." If I had to put them in the same sentence, I'd say "Prakasha is existence itself." Hari Om! --Greg The speed of light must therefore be the same for different observers, no matter how fast they may go towards an oncoming beam of light or run away from a pursuing beam. This was the starting point from which Einstein brought about his 'dematerializing' revolution in modern physics. Einstein's basic approach was simply to ask what reality is seen in common, beneath the varying appearances that depend on different points of view. And he saw that while space and time are varying measurements, *light shows us a background continuity that does not vary in this way*. [!!! Asterisks mine. Does this (*..*) not point at what I wrote above? Can the background continuity find meaning without there being light in the first place? Can light find expression without the continuity? Both questions are difficult to answer. We may, therefore, have to ask: Are they, i.e. light, space and time, just one entity finding simultaneous expression as two (light and space- time continuum)? I admit the temporal word 'simultaneous' has no meaning when we are talking about a 'stage' where time is yet to take birth.] That continuity is called the 'space-time continuum'. It is made up from events, which are geometrically connected to each other, in the four dimensions of space and time. The connection is not a gross material one, in which one piece of matter acts with force upon some other object. Instead, the connection is more subtly made between events, which carry subtle influences through a field conditioning of space and time. As light travels, it transmits information from elsewhere. This is one meaning of the word 'prakasha' -- as the 'shining forth' of ropagating light, whose information joins together different things and brings us knowledge the world. But propagation in its turn implies a background continuity, whose nature shows through travelling light. That light- bearing continuity is called 'akasha', where the prefix 'a-' implies and 'intimate proximity' to the 'shining' that's implied by '-kasha'. Objective physics goes so far, but can go no further. [WOW! This, I would say, is the best and deepest insight this discussion on L.I.E. has brought about! You have beautifully elevated our mundane understanding of light by delving deep into the meaning of the word prakAshA. Yet again, isn't this prakAshA the ultimate revealer of the background continuity of AkAshA as you said the nature of AkAshA shows through praKAsha. Can we, therefore, think: PRAKASHA IS, AAKASHA IS? It cannot be: AKASHA IS, PRAKASHA IS. Am I right? Or, does it mean the same both ways? AkAshA and PrakAshA seem an inseparable bundle!] But Einstein saw that something deeper was implied, in the intuitions that enable scientists to form their theories. As he said (in Mein Weltbild, Amsterdam: Querido Verlag, 1934): 'You will hardly find one among the profounder sort of scientific minds without a religious feeling of his own.... His religious feeling takes the form of rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law, which reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection. This feeling is the guiding principle of his life and work, in so far as he succeeds in keeping himself from the shackles of selfish desire. It is beyond question closely akin to that which has possessed the religious geniuses of all ages.' The implication here is subjective, in an advaitic sense. In order to see further and more accurately into the objective world, scientists fall deeper back into subjective experience. That implies a subjective light (Einstein's 'intelligence of such superiority ...') which underlies the world's intelligibility to us(Einstein's 'harmony of natural law'). Such a subjective light is indicated by another and a deeper meaning of the word 'prakasha'. For the prefix 'pra-' has a double meaning. It means both 'pro-' or 'forward' and 'pre-' or 'prior'. (Etymologically, both 'pro-' and 'pre-' are cognate with the Sanskrit 'pra-'. The earlier form of 'pre-' was 'prae-'). So 'prakasha' does not only mean a 'shining forth', but also a 'prior shining' or a 'shining underneath'. The second meaning is advaitic. It refers to an impersonal depth of consciousness, where no duality is left between what truly knows and the complete reality of all that's known. [May I, therefore, extend prakAshA to mean the primary manifestation of that subjective Light? The primary manifestation then goes on to erect AkAshA (space-time continuum) with the world of objects and events in it.] It's only thus that I would try to relate advaita and physics. Advaita belongs to a completely different level of consideration, where knowledge is no instrumental action, but only light in which all instruments and actions are dissolved. Of that light, Einstein's own description shows its relation to instrumental sciences. As he says, it is 'of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection'. [Yes. It is in that Light that is within us or that we really are that all phenomena including prakAsha ultimately resolve and abide in peace.] [Thanks. There is Light in Enlightenment. Enlightenment is Light! With these wrods, permit me to wrap up this discussion on L.I.E. L.I.E. cannot remain metaphorical if the primary meaning of prakAshA is well understood.] [Nevertheless, Shri Ananda Wood,I would like to listen to you on my thoughts mentioned above as the Light in Enlightenment cannot go off come end-September!] PranAms. Madathil Nair UNQUOTE Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 3, 2003 Report Share Posted October 3, 2003 Namaste Gregji. Thank you very much for sparing your valuable time. Yes. You are absolutely right and that is what we concluded at the end of our discussion on Light in Enlightenment, i.e. Light (prakAshA) is Englightenment or, in your words, prakAshA is Existence. What you quoted from the earlier parts of my post are merely statements which led us to that incontrovertible conclusion, i.e. we began considering light as something that 'exists', then tried to understand it as prakAshA in the light of Shri Wood's profound remarks and ultimately found that that prakAsha is primary erecting space-time continuum with all creation within it. The attempt was to bridge the seeming gap between science and advaita. I am happy that it has paid off. PraNAms. Madathil Nair __________________ advaitin, Gregory Goode <goode@D...> wrote: > At 01:14 PM 10/3/2003 +0000, Madathil Rajendran Nair wrote: > Namaste Gregji. > > Probably I missed to include Shri Ananda Wood's post and my comments > thereto in my last mail to you. Here it is. > > Got it, thanks. Some commentary follows: > ========================================= > Madathil wrote: > > [space being the separation between objects (Can there be space > without objects?) and objects being the subject of observation, we > have to conclude that space is also made evident by light. Then, > don't we have to think that LIGHT IS, SPACE AND ITS ELECTROMAGNETIC > PROPERTIES ARE.] > > ==========Question. You say "LIGHT IS, SPACE AND ITS ELECTROMAGNETIC PROPERTIES ARE." Later, you say, "PRAKASHA IS, AAKASHA IS? It cannot be: AKASHA IS, PRAKASHA IS." > > When you say "X is, Y is," do you mean to say that X exists before Y? > > I'll proceed as if that's what you mean. > > Akasha: > ======= > One of the creation mentions akasha. In the panchikarana or quintuplication of elements, gross ether (akasha) comes to exist from subtle ether. > > (http://acharya.iitm.ac.in/mirrors/vv/scripture/vedanta/vtca14a.html) > (http://www.crvp.org/book/Series03/IIIB-4/chapter_two.htm) > > So we can say that ether or akasha, as an element, exists. > > But Prakasha - illumination, clarity, consciousness: > ==================================================== > Prakasha, as clarity, illumination, consciousness, is a not the kind of thing about which you can say "It exists" or "it doesn't exist." That is, it's a category mistake to apply the predicate "exists" to Prakasha. Rather, the predicate "exists" just doesn't apply to Prakasha. To say that Prakasha exists, would be to say that there's a universe in which it is present - as though it just might have been absent in the universe. > > But Prakasha is the sum and substance of the universe. So I wouldn't say that Prakasha "exists." If I had to put them in the same sentence, I'd say "Prakasha is existence itself." > > Hari Om! > > --Greg The speed of light must therefore be the same for different > observers, no matter how fast they may go towards an oncoming beam of > light or run away from a pursuing beam. This was the starting point > from which Einstein brought about his 'dematerializing' revolution in > modern physics. > > Einstein's basic approach was simply to ask what reality is seen in > common, beneath the varying appearances that depend on different > points of view. And he saw that while space and time are varying > measurements, *light shows us a background continuity that does not > vary in this way*. > > > [!!! Asterisks mine. Does this (*..*) not point at what I wrote > above? Can the background continuity find meaning without there > being light in the first place? Can light find expression without the > continuity? Both questions are difficult to answer. We may, > therefore, have to ask: Are they, i.e. light, space and time, just > one entity finding simultaneous expression as two (light and space- > time continuum)? I admit the temporal word 'simultaneous' has no > meaning when we are talking about a 'stage' where time is yet to take > birth.] > > > That continuity is called the 'space-time continuum'. It is made up > from events, which are geometrically connected to each other, in the > four dimensions of space and time. The connection is not a gross > material one, in which one piece of matter acts with force upon some > other object. Instead, the connection is more subtly made between > events, which carry subtle influences through a field conditioning of > space and time. > > As light travels, it transmits information from elsewhere. This is one > meaning of the word 'prakasha' -- as the 'shining forth' of ropagating > light, whose information joins together different things and brings us > knowledge the world. But propagation in its turn implies a background > continuity, whose nature shows through travelling light. That light- > bearing continuity is called 'akasha', where the prefix 'a-' implies > and 'intimate proximity' to the 'shining' that's implied by '- kasha'. > Objective physics goes so far, but can go no further. > > > [WOW! This, I would say, is the best and deepest insight this > discussion on L.I.E. has brought about! You have beautifully > elevated our mundane understanding of light by delving deep into the > meaning of the word prakAshA. Yet again, isn't this prakAshA the > ultimate revealer of the background continuity of AkAshA as you said > the nature of AkAshA shows through praKAsha. Can we, therefore, > think: PRAKASHA IS, AAKASHA IS? It cannot be: AKASHA IS, PRAKASHA > IS. Am I right? Or, does it mean the same both ways? AkAshA and > PrakAshA seem an inseparable bundle!] > > > But Einstein saw that something deeper was implied, in the intuitions > that enable scientists to form their theories. As he said (in Mein > Weltbild, Amsterdam: Querido Verlag, 1934): 'You will hardly find one > among the profounder sort of scientific minds without a religious > feeling of his own.... His religious feeling takes the form of > rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law, which reveals an > intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the > systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly > insignificant reflection. This feeling is the guiding principle of > his life and work, in so far as he succeeds in keeping himself > from the shackles of selfish desire. It is beyond question closely > akin to that which has possessed the religious geniuses of all ages.' > > The implication here is subjective, in an advaitic sense. In order to > see further and more accurately into the objective world, scientists > fall deeper back into subjective experience. That implies a > subjective light (Einstein's 'intelligence of such superiority ...') > which underlies the world's intelligibility to us (Einstein's 'harmony > of natural law'). Such a subjective light is indicated by another and > a deeper meaning of the word 'prakasha'. For the prefix 'pra-' has a > double meaning. It means both 'pro-' or 'forward' and 'pre-' > or 'prior'. (Etymologically, both 'pro-' and 'pre-' are cognate with > the Sanskrit 'pra-'. The earlier form of 'pre-' was 'prae-'). > So 'prakasha' does not only mean a 'shining forth', but also a 'prior > shining' or a 'shining underneath'. The second meaning is advaitic. > It refers to an impersonal depth of consciousness, where no duality > is left between what truly knows and the complete reality of all > that's known. > > > [May I, therefore, extend prakAshA to mean the primary manifestation > of that subjective Light? The primary manifestation then goes on to > erect AkAshA (space-time continuum) with the world of objects and > events in it.] > > > It's only thus that I would try to relate advaita and physics. Advaita > belongs to a completely different level of consideration, where > knowledge is no instrumental action, but only light in which all > instruments and actions are dissolved. Of that light, Einstein's own > description shows its relation to instrumental sciences. As he says, > it is 'of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic > thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant > reflection'. > > > [Yes. It is in that Light that is within us or that we really are > that all phenomena including prakAsha ultimately resolve and abide in > peace.] > > [Thanks. There is Light in Enlightenment. Enlightenment is Light! > With these wrods, permit me to wrap up this discussion on L.I.E. > L.I.E. cannot remain metaphorical if the primary meaning of prakAshA > is well understood.] > > [Nevertheless, Shri Ananda Wood,I would like to listen to you on my > thoughts mentioned above as the Light in Enlightenment cannot go off > come end-September!] > > PranAms. > > Madathil Nair > > > UNQUOTE Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 3, 2003 Report Share Posted October 3, 2003 Namaste Maniji. As usual you are simple and right in what you say. However, with regard to spiritual experiences, I would say, although they are just experiences occurring in time, with a beginning and end, they effect a virtual metamorphosis on the aspirant inasmuchas he/she is no more the same erstwhile ordinary being. The experiences seem to bring in a lot of vEdAntic insights which enable them to sacrifice their personal comforts and propel them with unblemished love into the service of humanity. In this light, spiritual experiences such as the ones Shri Ramakrishna, Shri Bhattatiripad et al had cannot be discounted just because they do not go well with air-tight vEdantic logic. Let us, therefore, accept and embrace them at least as monumental milestones in spiritual progress. Such experiences have occurred to them without their asking for them. Besides, the wise among them have never overplayed these experieces to lead their disciples away from the real vEdantic knowledge which you have spelt out in your post in a crystal-clear manner. I know that you have appreciated the significance of spiritual experiences. Nevertheless, this is just to reemphasize that candid appreciation. PraNAms. Madathil Nair _______________ advaitin, "R.S.MANI" <r_s_mani> wrote: > > > > With all respects to the learned members of the group, I would like to say a few more words on the subject. > > **<<if you see what shri narayana bhattathri saw in broad daylight in front of lord guruvayoorappan,can it be called illusion no. it was the actual thing he saw in front of his eyes that is why he could compose it into a song, so that we all can believe it. when he said "agre pasyami" i am seeing it in front of me. you cant call it illusion. for that matter when arjuna said "pasyami devan" can you call it illusion. no. the objects exist for material world for those beyond only god exists and he cant be brought in to the gambit of scientific objects.we cant even compare the vision of god into dream or awakening from dream etc.no one dreams of god, he actually sees him.>>** > > > > Pashyami though means "seeing" the lakshyartha is knowing (just like, Darshan means vision but not vision taking place through the physical eyes, but it is knowing or understanding the "object") > > Ramakrishna Paramahansa, it is said, used to have not only vision of Kali, but he used to converse with Her and also feed her, etc. These are all "subjective experiences" and we cannot universalize them. > > There is a fundamental principle being taught to the students of Vedanta i.e. "Yad drushyam, tad nashyam". So, the moment one sees (objectifies) any thing, even Lord Guruvayoorappa or Lord Krishna or Kali, etc. what one "sees" so, are all Anatma, as they do not have independent existence. Can one who has never heard of these deities, have such visions? For example, I have never come across a Christian having vision of any of these deities, though he may have the vision of Lord Jesus Christ. My understanding is, Vedanta does not ask one to deny such experiences, but not to take them as real, as they depend on the "subject" backed by notions gathered all through about the objects, even the Lord, when he objectifies Him, i.e. Jeeva being the subject, "limited consciousness of Jeeva" (It is absolutely wrong to say "limited consciousness" as consciousness, being Poornam, can never be limited by anything, though what appears to "exist" (better still the manifestations of consciousness) in > consciousness, can limit each other, i.e. Desha, Kala and Vastu). THE PURPOSE OF SAYING ALL THESE IS NOT TO DENY THE IMPORTANCE AND PLACE OF SUCH THINGS HAPPEN/OR SUCH VISIONS ETC. TO ONE, ON HIS JOURNEY TO REACH WHAT HE IS REALLY LOOKING FOR. They have their own places. > > In this context I remember a very interesting story told by Swamiji. There was a very great Vishnu Bhakta and he was yearning for Darshan of the Lord even for a second. Somehow he was taken to Vaikhunda and was placed before the Lord shining with all his glittering ornaments, pitambara, shankh, chakra, gada etc., etc. The question is how long this Bhakta will stand before the Lord. He will see the front portion of the Lord for some time, then sides, backside etc. and he will do Namaskar again again, he will even sing songs in praise of the Lord, but all these how long? One hour or two hour? After sometime he will naturally get fed up with it even when it is Lord for whose "Darshan" (physically seeing) he was yearning all the life. Then he may look for a cup of coffee! Why is it so? Because Jeeva cannot stand dwaita, as it has some sort of idea of its being Poornam, though due to ignorance, it is searching that Poornatwa in objects, including its body, mind and intellect. That is why > on recognition of self-knowledge what is happening is " praptasya praptam" > > The idea is what we are striving for is not for such experiences from objects. We are actually striving for the (Parama Purushartha) inherent Poornatwa, and until that is recognized, there is no rest and one will continue to be unhappy though he may taste happiness now and then from his own notions. > > The message of Vedanta is not to reject anything, but Vedanta results in acceptance of everything as That Ultimate Reality, though appearing in diverse forms with diverse names etc. > > I know I need to be corrected and hope the learned members can throw "light" wherever required /on whatever I have mentioned above. 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.