World not there 4 billion years ago

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sadanandaji & ProfVKji & Ranjeetji

 

Sadanandaji said:

>Their point being the world was there 4 billions

>years ago even before any conscious entity know about

>it. Hence according to them I am very unscientific

>(besides being non-vedantic).

 

Actually, the doctrine that the world is an illusion does have

scientific consequences. I am forced to conclude that the world

indeed did not exist 4 billion years ago. It exists only in the

imaginations of 'conscious beings', and I doubt very much that

primitive one-celled life-forms have any kind of consciousness. You

might say that Brahman was 'looking' at it the whole time, sustaining

it in his consciousness, but I think this makes too much of a

'person' or jiva out of Brahman. (This is not to deny that the laws

of physics and biology, if *extrapolated* backwards, are consistent

with a primeval soup with biochemical molecules.)

 

Then, as always, you make a comment which shows that you are faithful

to the scriptures. Hinduism needs people like you to survive! You

say that even Ramana and Nisargadatta must refer to the scriptures.

I guess this is where I am not a complete Advaitin and my skeptical

Buddhist background reveals itself. The ultimate proof for me is

what I experience in my own consciousness. As I slowly become more

enlightened (hopefully), the truth of the scriptures becomes more

apparent to me.

 

However, this does not mean that I reject scriptures such as the

Upanishads. Ignorant as I am, I already have a glimmer of intuition

which enables me to appreciate them and consider them a very good

working hypothesis (which is quite different from a mere uninformed

gamble). Also, I have faith in the *sincerity* and *intelligence* of

the ancient rishis.

 

 

 

ProfVKji said:

>Namaste, Benjamin-ji

>

>Please take this in a lighter vein.

 

I don't know whether this remark refers to what followed, or whether

you think I am being too serious in what I post on this list. I hope

it is not the latter. I am not taking it too seriously, but I am

quite serious that it is useless trying to 'start from scratch' on

this list. Given the background and inclinations of the members, it

is simply too inefficient. Therefore, it is much more productive to

assume a certain tradition, at least for the purposes of discussion,

and then to constantly refer to it. This was intended as wise advice

for all participants here. Besides, if you are Advaitin in any real

sense of the word, there is plenty to back you up. Others have said

it all much better.

 

 

 

Ranjeetji said:

>Shri Nisargadatta Maharaj and Shri Ramana Maharshi

>does not belong to the advaitic tradition or the

>Guru-parampara.

 

This is news to me! I know some Indian-Americans who taking being

Advaitins VERY seriously, who have devoted their lives to it, and who

would object strenuously to this statement. I suppose Sri Atmananda

is not an Advaitin either...

 

Hari Om!

Benjamin