existence of objects

[Guest guest]

friends,

 

When we talk of “objects” what exactly we mean by this

word? In this co

ntext, I think we should also take into account the

“existence of the sub

ject itself” which observes the “existence of the

objects” outside.

 

 

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”)

 

Mr mani,

thanks for your nice posting.

even lord said to arjuna when he asked him, "you claim

to be super human and say all things are possible

because of you and nothing moves with out your

approval. can you show me who are you and your real

form?". to this the lord said, "to see me you really

require devine eyes as normal eyes cant see me. and i

give you these eyes by my yogic power.also you will

see my form which is the actual one. now you see my

actual form which i am showing to you by my yogic

power."

 

so all of us have to get the knowledge to get those

eyes through which we can see god. like Sri

ramakrishna and others saw.

 

pranams

cdr bvn

 

 

______________________

Want to chat instantly with your online friends? Get the FREE

Messenger http://mail.messenger..co.uk

[Guest guest]

Namaste, Sri Nairji, and all

 

It seems my posting regarding “experiences” of Sri Bhattathirpadu, Sri

Ramakrishna Parama Hamsa, is misunderstood. Maybe my communication skill

requires improvement. I am the last person to discount their/or anybody else’s

experiences. All such experiences in one’s spiritual journey have their own

places and they are very important also. Somehow, I am unable to understand how

such experiences will release one from bondage, as bondage is the result of

self-ignorance. The bondage may be by a golden chain and yet bondage is bondage.

 

I hope the learned members of the group will permit me to quote the following

from the 1st Ullasa of the Varthika on Dakshinamoorthy Sthrothram by Sri

Sureshwaracharya:

 

The questions are:

 

“kim theshu theshu va artheshu, kim va sarvatman ishware,

 

ishwaratwam ch jeevatwam sarvamtatwam kee drsham?”

 

“janeeyad tat katham jeeva: kim tad gnanasya sadhanam?

 

Gnanasya phalam kim syad ekatwam cha katham bhaved?”

 

“sarvajna: sarvakarta cha katham atma bhavishyadi?”

 

“tham pruchantham prathi guru: vaktum arabhate”

 

So the Sthrothra starts

 

“vishwam darpana drushyamana nagree…etc.etc.”

 

In Mu.Up. also it is said:

 

“Pareekshya lokan karmachidan brahmana: nirvedam ayat asti akruth: kruthena, tat

vignanartham sa gurum eva abhigached samidpani: srotriyam brahmanishtam.”

 

What I wanted to say is Vedanta is addressed to one who is suffering from

samsaritwa i.e. limitation and bondage, and who wants to get released from that.

 

All the Upanishads say, it is ignorance of self that binds one and removal of

self-ignorance, liberates him from his feeling of bondage.

 

It is because of self-ignorance, the jeeva suffers from all notions about itself

and about others.

 

The Kai.Up.further says “thyagena eke amruthatwam”

 

Here the lakshyartha of thyaga is dropping of all notions about the self and

about the world confronting the jeeva, and not running away from the world of

experience.

 

The Lord also said “sarva dharman parithyjya” and He did not want us to renounce

the Dharmas, but the notions about the Dharma that Dharma will release me, as

performance of Dharma also binds one maybe with a golden chain.

 

Why I wrote all the above is because, the reason for one’s bondage, samsaritwa,

feeling limited etc. etc. is due to self-ignorance and the antidote for

ignorance is knowledge only. Self-knowledge can be gained only through Sabda,

i.e. Vedanta.

 

Before I end this posting, may I quote from Vivekachoodamani:

 

“pathanthu sasthrani, yajanthu devan, kurvanthu karmani, bhajanthu devathaa:,

athma aikya bodhena vina vimukthi: na sidhyathi brahma shatha anthare api”

 

“chittasya shudhaye karma na thu vastu upalabddhaye, vastu sidhi vicharena na

kinchid karma kotibhi:”

 

I know I need to be corrected by the members of the group, as my understanding

may be resulting from “agrahanam” or even “anyatha grahanam” of the whole

subject.

 

Hari Om

 

Mani

 

 

Madathil Rajendran Nair <madathilnair wrote: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.

 

 

Discussion of Shankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy of nonseparablity of Atman

and Brahman.

Advaitin List Archives available at: http://www.eScribe.com/culture/advaitin/

To Post a message send an email to : advaitin

Messages Archived at: advaitin/messages

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The New with improved product search

 

 

[Guest guest]

Hi Benjamin (& Greg),

 

Sorry I was less than clear last time - I'll try harder!

 

It seems to me, Benjamin, that you have still not stepped back far enough

conceptually. This 'Benjamin awareness' that you are talking about is not, I

suggest, the non-dual consciousness that you are proposing at all. (Of

course, it obviously cannot be because you are also accepting the existence

of a separate 'Greg awareness'.) It seems to me that you are still talking

about an ego or jiiva that happens to be attached to an idea that subjects

and objects are not separate. This does not differ in essence from an ego

that believes that we go to heaven or hell when we die. Speaking from the

vantage point of Advaita, this ego is a fiction arising from superimposition

of false notions of name and form etc. upon the non-dual reality. It is

itself a fiction regardless of whether it believes in Advaitic truths or any

other philosophic fictions. In fact, both the 'Benjamin awareness' and

(Benjamin's conception of) the 'Greg awareness' are examples of these

arisings. Benjamin could not be aware of either without this Consciousness

but only the Consciousness is. Benjamin and Greg are not.

 

Of course, the conceptual 'stepping back' does not make all of this a

suddenly intuited revelation of truth (unfortunately) but at least it might

stop the repetitive aspects of the discussion! :>)

 

(Incidentally, I wondered if a lucid explanation of the 'bundle theory' of

consciousness from someone - Greg? - might help.)

 

Best wishes,

 

Dennis

[Guest guest]

Re my last post, here is a brief article downloaded from:

http://polywog.navpoint.com/philosophy/metaphysics/asgn3/node4.html

That may provide some insight into what I had in mind (I haven't actually

followed it up in my own mind yet!)

Bundle Theory

Parfit argues for the Bundle Theory, which states that we cannot explain the

unit of consciousness through people but rather as a series of mental states

and events. Each one of these series constitutes a life, denying the

existence of a person to be existing separately from one's body.

Parfit brings into existence science fiction's favourite toy: the

teleporter. It is a device which can read the configuration of your matter

while destroying it, then transfer the information to another location (at

the speed of light). The receiver reads this information creating an exact

copy of your matter there. For all intensive purposes, argues Parfit, you

will die. However, you will have a replica of yourself who will pick up

where you left off with life. The replica will not be you, rather, it will

be someone who will be exactly similar to you.[1, p. 313]

The question that Parfit raises is whether or not the person would be the

same person as you are. He insists that the answer is no. Although the

replica would be psychologically contiguous upto the point you completely

dematerialised, it would not have a ``normal'' cause. The wrong line of

reasoning, he states is to believe that the teleporter will not get ``you''

to Mars. You want the person on Mars to be ``you'' in a specially intimate

way in which no one else could ever be. This line of reasoning, he argues,

is fallacious because it falls under the Ego Theory.

The Ego Theory states that the person's continued existence is explained

through the persistence of a particular subject of experiences. In other

words, personal identity obtains when the individual, as subject to

experiences, persists through time. To ground the argument on actual data,

Parfit introduces split-brain patients. Split-brain patients are those whose

brains lack the dominant hemisphere leaving the sub-dominant halves. As a

result, if you present a blue placard visible to one side, and a red placard

visible to the other, then when you ask the individuals to write down what

colour they see, the left hand will write blue, and the right hand will

write red.

The Ego Theorists would argue that split-brain patients have two separate

streams of consciousness, and that there are not two persons. What unifies

the experiences in one person's stream is the fact that the blue experience

and writing of blue is being had by one subject, the opposite being true of

the other stream. The Ego Theorists separate the person from the subject of

experiences; as such, they violate Ockham's razor: the introduction of the

subject of appearances that are not persons.

The Bundle Theorists would argue, however, that very much like persons

having several different experiences at once, one may have several states of

awareness of several different experiences. This does not introduce any sort

of third entity like the ego which are not the same as the person (patient)

in the split-brain analogy.

 

Best wishes,

 

Dennis