BEING THE MIRROR ? was Dakshinamurthy Stotra & Buddhist view from ramana

[Guest guest]

advaitin, Lulu Dong <lulu.dong wrote:

>

>

> Hello subbu...

>

>

> ....looking into the mirror one undoubtedly recognises the falsity

of the reflection inside the mirror ... and concludes... the image

inside the mirror is false... my image... the image on this side of

the mirror is real... therefore i am real... my image in the mirror is

false.

>

> but this is indeed the false conclusion of the false image...

>

> it is the false image which arrives at the false conclusion...

>

>

> Dear sir,

What you write seems to be very confusing. Would you

make it a bit simple? Are you trying to say that even the entity that

thinks that it is some thing apart from the reflection is false? That

seems to be an impasse. Does your position convey the idea of all

judgements about the true Self being the fabrication of the false?

Who, then, gets the understanding. If you say that in the waking up

from the dream, the dream never existed, it would be alright. Or, do

you say that even the waking self has no business in the scheme of

understanding? Is it the teaching of the Buddha that suggests itself

to your understanding?

 

yours sincerely,

Sankarraman

[Guest guest]

Dear Sir,

Yes, the entity that thinks that it is some thing apart from the reflection is false.

All judgements about the true Self are the fabrication of the false Self.

The false Self get's the understanding that it is waking from the dream, that there is nothing outside the dream, that the dream is all there is and that everything about this dream is false including the dreamer.

the waking self, the false self and the dream self are all false selves.

The teaching of the Buddha suggests itself to my understanding.

Namaste,

Lulu Dong

Dear sir,

What you write seems to be very confusing. Would you

make it a bit simple? Are you trying to say that even the entity that

thinks that it is some thing apart from the reflection is false? That

seems to be an impasse. Does your position convey the idea of all

judgements about the true Self being the fabrication of the false?

Who, then, gets the understanding. If you say that in the waking up

 

from the dream, the dream never existed, it would be alright. Or, do

you say that even the waking self has no business in the scheme of

understanding? Is it the teaching of the Buddha that suggests itself

to your understanding?

 

yours sincerely,

Sankarraman

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

"who is the one who gets the knowledge, is it the real Self or the False

Self? Kindly explain your understanding on this."

 

>

> Hari Om,

> Suku

 

Namaste Suku-ji

Thanks to you I was able to read a treasurehouse of beautiful

explanations that Prof VKji has so kindly compiled for students like

us on his website. What Murthy-ji has said is what any Master will say

to us - you are one deluded, you are the one who needs liberation -

and simple as it sounds it is quite profound.

 

I can give you my perspective of the same thing. This right knowledge

of the self is the essence as well as the goal of vedanta.

 

When we say I am deluded, or I am sad, or I am in need of liberation

 

the truth in it only is "I am"

any word following that is as a consequence of error.

 

when you analyze your own question - can a person truly have 2 selfs?

a true self and a false self? of course not - right? I am I. I cannot

be 2 people.

 

Yet when the sruti says to me I am Brahman my eyebrows go up!

This srshti with many universes consisting of hot spots spewing

millions of galaxies every second and black spots destroying an equal

number and with our sun being a not-so-bright star in one small part

of one galaxy and having so many planets revolving around it and on

one small planet called earth in one country of billion people in one

small city in a street in a house am I - and I am the substratum of

this whole construct! I can barely move my sofaset around the room!

I am clearly not the substratum of the universe!! Yet i hear "I am the

absolute" and, very importantly, I have shraddha in the teaching (this

is where faith in the sruti is paramount)

 

I want to believe it but I find it hard to digest initially.

 

Thus comes the question that you posed "who then am I?"

 

Purely out of benevolence for the aspirants like us, the shastra gives

us a model- it introduces the idea of a jiva and in this model, it is

composed of 5 sheaths, mixture of 5 primary tattvas, 3 gunas and so on

and details are given as to how the pancha mahabhutas are mixed etc.

Since there is no sambandha possible between the jiva and brahman a

term is introduced to us called anyonya adhyasa - consciousness and

existence are lent as it were to the jiva akin to a the reflection of

the moon in a bucket of water (another example is a red hot iron ball

where the heat does not belong to the iron but is borrwed from the

fire even though it may appear that it is the iron ball which is red

hot) - details of these you are sure to find in any lecture or book on

the subject. Then you work your way in negating your identity with

each kosa and by a process of elimination understand who you are.

 

There is a word of caution about this approach - this detailed analyss

of the jiva can initially end up (esp. to a simple intellect like

mine) as a validation for the jiva "existing" as a legitimate entity.

The jiva is only a "as though", his ignorance is also "as though" and

his liberation is equally "as though" Intially we can fall into the

trap of saying brahman is of course real but then there is a poor

fellow - this deluded jiva who also appears to be very real and has a

real problem of superimposition, etc.

 

Ultimately there is no jiva separate from (or even a microscopic part

of) the substratum which is brahman, much less having kosas which as

it were cover brahman. Any appearance to the contrary is only an

illusion. Sublimate the ego and this illusion is gone ere long. The

whole thing - jiva, kosas, mind, etc etc are all Brahman, and that is

what is nonduality.

 

Hari Om

 

Shyam

[Guest guest]

Namaste Suku-ji

Thanks to you I was able to read a treasurehouse of beautiful

explanations that Prof VKji has so kindly compiled for students like

us on his website. What Murthy-ji has said is what any Master will

say to us - you are one deluded, you are the one who needs

liberation - and simple as it sounds it is quite profound.

 

I can give you my perspective of the same thing. This right knowledge

of the self is the essence as well as the goal of vedanta.

 

When we say I am deluded, or I am sad, or I am in need of liberation

 

the truth in it only is "I am"

any word following that is as a consequence of error.

 

when you analyze your own question - can a person truly have 2 selfs?

a true self and a false self? of course not - right? I am I. I cannot

be 2 people.

 

Yet when the sruti says to me I am Brahman my eyebrows go up!

This srshti with many universes consisting of hot spots spewing

millions of galaxies every second and black spots destroying an equal

number and with our sun being a not-so-bright star in one small part

of one galaxy and having so many planets revolving around it and on

one small planet called earth in one country of billion people in one

small city in a street in a house am I - and I am the substratum of

this whole construct! I can barely move my sofaset around the room!

I am clearly not the substratum of the universe!! Yet i hear "I am

the absolute" and, very importantly, I have shraddha in the teaching

(this is where faith in the sruti is paramount)

 

I want to believe it but I find it hard to digest initially.

 

Thus comes the question that you posed "who then am I?"

 

Purely out of benevolence for the aspirants like us, the shastra

gives us a model- it introduces the idea of a jiva and in this

model, it is composed of 5 sheaths, mixture of 5 primary tattvas, 3

gunas and so on and details are given as to how the pancha

mahabhutas are mixed etc.

Since there is no sambandha possible between the jiva and brahman a

term is introduced to us called anyonya adhyasa - consciousness and

existence are lent as it were to the jiva akin to a the reflection of

the moon in a bucket of water (another example is a red hot iron ball

where the heat does not belong to the iron but is borrwed from the

fire even though it may appear that it is the iron ball which is red

hot) - details of these you are sure to find in any lecture or book

on the subject. Then you work your way in negating your identity with

each kosa and by a process of elimination understand who you are.

 

There is a word of caution about this approach - this detailed

analyss of the jiva can initially end up (esp. to a simple intellect

like mine) as a validation for the jiva "existing" as a legitimate

entity. The jiva is only a "as though", his ignorance is also "as

though" and his liberation is equally "as though" Intially we can

fall into the trap of saying brahman is of course real but then

there is a poor fellow - this deluded jiva who also appears to be

very real and has a real problem of superimposition, etc.

 

Ultimately there is no jiva separate from (or even a microscopic part

of) the substratum which is brahman, much less having kosas which as

it were cover brahman. Any appearance to the contrary is only an

illusion. Sublimate the ego and this illusion is gone ere long. The

whole thing - jiva, kosas, mind, etc etc are all Brahman, and that is

what is nonduality.

 

Hari Om

 

Shyam

 

 

Namaste to all.

Pranams to Shyam-ji, Prof VK-ji, Subbu-ji, Sankarraman-ji, Ram

chandran-ji, and Srinivasa murthy-ji.

 

I am very thankful to all of you for your wonderful explanations on

a simple question from a beginner. Prof VK-ji's web site is indeed a

tresurehouse of knowledge and I am still trying to understand and I

appreciate the beautiful explanations. Like when he says,

 

"This is therefore a seemingly endless play of the sentient

Consciousness within and the insentient universe of matter outside

through the medium of the BMI. This is the cit-jaDa-granthi that

Maharshi Ramana talked about (Ref. Ch.4) The sentient Consciousness

within, which is nothing but a spark of the parAshakti, is called

Purushha. Everything else, including the interaction with other

beings, is of course prakRti. This interplay of Purushha and

prakRti is what constitutes our passage through life.

Now the Lord says: There are two Purushhas.

 

dvAv-imau purushhau loke kshharashcA-kshhara eva ca /

kshharas-sarvANi bhUtAni kUTastho'kshhara ucyate // XV – 16 //

 

They are kshhara-purushha (the perishable purushha) and akshara-

purushha (the imperishable purushha). The kshhara is the familiar

JIva. It is expressing itself through the BMI. But in so expressing

itself, it invariably makes the mistake of thinking it is just BMI

and nothing more. In other words, the kshhara-purushha commits the

colossal error of identifying itself with the BMI. This colossal

error is called `anAdi avidyA' (Beginningless Ignorance). "

 

Also later he says that "What does the Lord say on this now? He says

there are two purushhas – kshhara and akshhara. The akshhara is

never hurt and can never be hurt, says He.

"acchedyoyam adAhyoyam akledyo'shoshhya eva ca" (II – 24).

This cannot be cut into pieces; this cannot be burnt; this cannot be

tainted; this cannot be dried.

 

So He says: "My dear Arjuna, You (the kshhara-purushha / JIva) are

wrongly identifying yourself with this BMI. Don't do this. Identify

yourself with the akshhara-purushha within you. Then there will be

no hurt. Only Happiness""

 

Further down, his example of the space in the pot replaced by

jalaakasha and the and how the water-space hides the real space,

namely the pot-space within and projects a falsity of an outer

space, inside. This is the grand delusion in which we are all in.

 

This is also rightly pointed out by you.

 

Srinivasa Murthy-ji, thanks for your simple yet profound answer,

"It is you who is asking the question that gets the answer. It is as

simple as that. Further, please investigate and find out whether

there are two selves viz., True Self and false self".

 

Thanks to all your explanations, I think my understanding has

improved and the problem is not with the with the Self, as ad-

mixture of both sentient and insentient, it is the identification of

the non-self (anatma) with the Self!

 

Pranams to all of you once again.

 

In the same context, I would like to present three verses from Drg-

Drsya Viveka and I would appreciate if you can offer your valauable

comments.

 

pratibhasiaka jivo yastajjagat pratibhasikam|

vastavam manyate anyastu mityeti vyavaharikah||

 

 

40. He who is the illusory Jiva thinks the illusory world as real

but the empirical Jiva thinks (that world unreal).

 

vyavaharika jivo ystajjagadvyvaharikam|

satyam pratyeti mityeti manyate paramarthikah||

 

41. He who is the empirical Jiva sees this empirical world as real.

But the real Jiva knows it to be unreal.

 

paramarthikajivastu brahmaikyam paramarthikam|

pratyeti vikshate nanyadvikshate tvaanutatmana||

 

42. But the Paramarthika Jiva knows its identity with Brahman to be

real. He does not see the other (He does not see any existence other

than Brahman). If he sees other he knows it to be illusory.

 

Namaste,

Suku

[Guest guest]

Namaste,

I agree, this is nonduality,

may i express my deep admiration,

allow me to verify our understanding on this,

are you Brahman ?

Is and if there is a difference between you and other jiva, and kosas, what is this difference ?

Lulu

Ultimately there is no jiva separate from the substratum which is

brahman. Any appearance to the contrary is only an illusion. The

whole thing - jiva, kosas, mind, etc etc are all Brahman, and that is

what is nonduality.

 

 

See the all-new, redesigned .com. Check it out.

[Guest guest]

Pranams Lulu-ji

 

Let me assure you your admiration, no doubt sincere, is unjustifed and

misplaced! I am as much as sincere seeker as you are.

 

Differences between anyone and anything are simply on the basis of

namaroopa.

Let us assume we are all clay pots - i am a small clay pot housed in a

small hut and you are a beautifully crafted large clay pot in a

palatial mansion.

 

If as a claypot you question me who I am i can answer this in 2 ways -

I am a small claypot or I am clay. The reality is that I am clay. I

was clay before the pot was created as were you as were every other

claypots.

If the pot is destroyed I do not get destroyed because I am clay - nor

do any other clay pots. Now to understand that I am clay I do not

destroy the pot. I can still funcstion as a claypot and hold water and

you can function as a claypot and hold nectar and so on. Just knowing

that I am clay does not remove the properties of the pot - the small

pot will still be small, it will still hold only the same amount of

water and it is still subject to instant destruction by one blow of

the hammer. But if I am notionally attahce to the pot-ness then that

destruction is my destruction even though that notion is erroneous.

However if i recognize my reality as the clay then if clay is eternal

i know i am eternal. If i see a tall clay montain or admire a

beautiful clay sea i am still admiring clay in that form - I do not

need to rid my mind of those forms in order to understand that they

are all clay. In fact any wonderful thing that any other clay pots do

or any other wonderful clay formation is my glory because they are all

compsed of me - the clay alone.

The pot only has a notional existence - it never had, does or will

have subtantive existence. But its underlying substratum (clay) is not

nonexistent - it was the only thing that was everexistent.

 

Hope this clarifies.

 

Hari OM.

 

Shyam

 

advaitin, Lulu Dong <lulu.dong wrote:

> Is and if there is a difference between you and other jiva, and

kosas, what is this difference ?

> Lulu

>

>

> Ultimately there is no jiva separate from the substratum which is

> brahman. Any appearance to the contrary is only an illusion. The

> whole thing - jiva, kosas, mind, etc etc are all Brahman, and that is

> what is nonduality.

>

>

>

>

>

>

> See the all-new, redesigned .com. Check it out.

>

>

[Guest guest]

Namaste Shyam,

thanks for the analogy, and the clarification, your explanation is both transparent and understandable. I understand it the exact same way.

I guess my question is now, if clay is everywhere and composes everything, should we, the clay, be concerned and identify or relate to other clay pots and help them realise that they are clay, that they are clay not pots, or should we simply keep the focus one our own pot, which is not really our own pot since we are the clay.

Thus as are we all pots, (since everything is made of clay) are we responsible for all pots, or is the concern to what happens to all the clay pots not our concern ?

Regards, Lulu

If the pot is destroyed I do not get destroyed because I am clay - nor

do any other clay pots.

 

 

 

Get on board. You're invited to try the new Mail Beta.

[Guest guest]

Namaste Shaym ji

 

>>The reality is that I am clay. I was clay before the pot was

created as were you as were every other claypots.

 

 

Just a thought. Why stop at clay. The clay that is me should realize

that it to is sub divisible and is made up of Silicon, aluminum and

iron oxides ( The chemical composition of clay is similar to the

average composition of rocks found at the earth's surface. Silicon,

aluminum and iron oxides make up more than 80% of this average

composition. A general formula for clay, considering it to be a

mineral, is Al2 O3. 2SiO2. 2H2O. ).

 

So the clay is not the final substance. If the analysis is conducted

far enough, you can can get to the proton/electron level and then

the quark level (of the components Silicon, Aluminium etc). Then one

wonders what hold the quarks together. Some sort of energy??. Are we

that energy??. I come to a closed door here.

 

So when I see a clay mountain or a clay sea, instead of seeing clay

on all sides, I can visualize fundamental particles dancing , coming

together and being repelled, all in well orchestrated ways, each

dancing to its own tune, still cooperating and in tune with others.

Each whirlpool of such particles in the clay sea forms the matter,

the clay pot that we see.

 

Just some thoughts..

 

Regards

Hersh

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "hersh_b" <hershbhasin wrote:

>

> Namaste Shaym ji

>

> >>The reality is that I am clay. I was clay before the pot was

> created as were you as were every other claypots.

>

>

> Just a thought. Why stop at clay.

>

> So the clay is not the final substance. Then one

> wonders what hold the quarks together. Some sort of energy??.

Are we that energy??. I come to a closed door here.

>

 

>

> Just some thoughts..

>

> Regards

> Hersh

 

Namaste Hersh,

 

I think that taking the analogy this far is what

Vedanta might call going beyond the limits of

the drishtanta.

 

That is, clay being the substrate reality of

all name and form is just an illustration of

how it is that nondual Being is the substrate

reality of all that one sees and perceives in

duality.

 

Then if someone introduces the 'doubt' about the

nature of matter, which you have so admirably done

above, the teacher will then switch to an analysis

of the creation itself.

 

All matter can be divided into smaller and

smaller parts, as can all units of time.

 

The smallest particle of matter has yet to

be found (and I would venture that Vedanta

would say the smallest particle of cannot be found,

as all particles no matter how small are subject

to division). The smallest unit of time can never

be found either. Each unit of time is subject

to division.

 

Then what? What is all of this duality anyway?

 

So then, the leap is made. All of this

which I see and perceive has for its

substrate reality, Being itself which

is formless and timeless, and yet *is,*

and I *is* also.

 

What size am I? What shape am I? Do I

change? Or do I always exist? Am I always

existence, which is timeless and formless?

If one closely examines one's experience,

one would have to say, "Yes."

 

If I am timeless and formless, and so is

everything else, then what separates me

from all of this? Nothing.

 

Durga

[Guest guest]

Namaste Durgaji

 

The simile between clay and claypot is traditionally designed to show

non-duality. It has been formulated using logic - if a clay pot is

broken, it resolves into clay etc. The approach being to go higher up

the class hierarchy viz from the clay pot to the clay etc. I just

pointed out that if you follow the rules of the game and keep on

going higher up the class hierarchy, you find that clay is made of

Silicon,aluminum and iron oxides, which are made of electrons and

protons , which are made of quarks etc. So what happens? - you end up

in an position which is quite opposite to what you set out to prove.

In fact you set out to show that the clay pot was made of clay (thus

showing non-dulity) but ended up with millions of quarks (or some

other fundamental particle). Is this not extreme duality?.

 

You did understand the problem. But then you want me to take

a "leap". Now what is this "leap" you mention. Surely it is not a

leap of logic as no logical explanation is given. Then it has to be a

leap of "faith". But this is not satisfying. You present a problem

dressed in logic but to explain my doubt, want me to believe, by

taking a leap of faith. You say:

 

"Am I always existence, which is timeless and formless?If one closely

examines one's experience, one would have to say, "Yes."

 

However when I closely examine my experience, I see people dying and

I know that I too will die. Am I timeless - not that I can tell.

 

Again if I accept that I am timeless, why should I accept words

written by people in the past (which is in time). See the

contradiction - a timeless soul trying to make sense of his being by

reading words written in time.

 

What I am saying is that we need to examine stuff from the past and

not take them at their

face value. The clay and clay pot analogy worked in the past when

electrons/ protons etc were not known. That was a different period

and time. So does it distract from the statement that "all is one".

It does not, however we need to explain it in a way that satisfies

the modern mind.

 

Regards

Hersh

 

advaitin, "Durga" <durgaji108 wrote:

>

> advaitin, "hersh_b" <hershbhasin@> wrote:

> >

> > Namaste Shaym ji

> >

> > >>The reality is that I am clay. I was clay before the pot was

> > created as were you as were every other claypots.

> >

> >

> > Just a thought. Why stop at clay.

> >

> > So the clay is not the final substance. Then one

> > wonders what hold the quarks together. Some sort of energy??.

> Are we that energy??. I come to a closed door here.

> >

>

> >

> > Just some thoughts..

> >

> > Regards

> > Hersh

>

> Namaste Hersh,

>

> I think that taking the analogy this far is what

> Vedanta might call going beyond the limits of

> the drishtanta.

>

> That is, clay being the substrate reality of

> all name and form is just an illustration of

> how it is that nondual Being is the substrate

> reality of all that one sees and perceives in

> duality.

>

> Then if someone introduces the 'doubt' about the

> nature of matter, which you have so admirably done

> above, the teacher will then switch to an analysis

> of the creation itself.

>

> All matter can be divided into smaller and

> smaller parts, as can all units of time.

>

> The smallest particle of matter has yet to

> be found (and I would venture that Vedanta

> would say the smallest particle of cannot be found,

> as all particles no matter how small are subject

> to division). The smallest unit of time can never

> be found either. Each unit of time is subject

> to division.

>

> Then what? What is all of this duality anyway?

>

> So then, the leap is made. All of this

> which I see and perceive has for its

> substrate reality, Being itself which

> is formless and timeless, and yet *is,*

> and I *is* also.

>

> What size am I? What shape am I? Do I

> change? Or do I always exist? Am I always

> existence, which is timeless and formless?

> If one closely examines one's experience,

> one would have to say, "Yes."

>

> If I am timeless and formless, and so is

> everything else, then what separates me

> from all of this? Nothing.

>

> Durga

>

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "hersh_b" <hershbhasin wrote:

>

> Namaste Durgaji

>

The clay and clay pot analogy worked in the past when electrons/

protons etc were not known. That was a different period and time. So

does it distract from the statement that "all is one". It does not,

however we need to explain it in a way that satisfies the modern mind.

Regards

Hersh

 

Namaste Hersh-ji

 

I understand what you are saying.

What you describe are the limitations of science it being an objective

pursuit and hence different from self-discovery which is a subjective

one by its very nature.

 

No matter how hard science tries it can never reach an "ultimate"

truth. A hundred years ago we were at the level of the atom

today it is quarks tomorrow glutons and some other "-tons" and so on

and on. After all I am no physicist but arent quarks so unstable that

they decay as soon as they are formed? what do they decay into? some

sub-quark particle and so on.. Incidentally the sixth quark or "truth"

quark was itself "believed" by most physicists to exist until very

recently

- so scientists itelf work on faith and beliefs until they are able to

prove or disprove somethings..similarly mathematicians can make use of

the square root of -1 and so on.

 

That time space are interdependent is something that only the genius

of an Einstein mathematically was able to express in this century but

our scriptures have been saying that for eons.

 

The answer to what is smaller than the smallest is the same vastu

that is larger than the universe itself.

 

Because our intellects and hence our science are in the matrix of the

same time and space it is never possible for science to objectify

a vastu that itself as it were created both time and space.

 

We can create giant Hubbles that can look 20, nay, 100 billion light

years away - again is that time or distance?? - and there will still

be a yonder!

 

Even the Nobel laureate Schroedinger turned to Vedanta when he had

reached the limits of his intellectual pursuits and he has written

about the Upanishads and his admiration for them in many of his books.

 

We are thus caught at the crossroads as it were of infinity - we loook

"within" and there is infinity, we look "out" and there is infinity.

We hence need something other than a purely objective scientific approach.

 

The study of vedanta is not a scientific expedition to know the

unknown. It is a spiritual quest by a seeker who questions his

existence, his purpose, his mortality, his problems and hence tries to

arrive at a solution for himself.

 

For this he needs a proper guru and he needs a certain attitude that

is predominantly characterized by two qualities - sharanaagati and

shraddha - surrender and faith are loose translations

 

We have to surrender our ego and we have to have faith in the scriptures.

 

This is why as Smt Lakshmiji so eloquently and elaborately pointed out

in her last post we have to take our shruti as Goddess or Mother.

Suggesting that the shruti or the parampara are dated or reduntant or

unnecessary is inappropriate and such an intellectual pursuit will

never work.

 

This does not mean you leave logic outside the altar.

In fact logic as a subject was compulsory for students of vedanta as

was advanced grammar.

 

It simply means I try to use my intellect and logic to understand for

myself what the shruti is telling me. If something does not quite add

up I do not lose faith in the shruti but analyze why I am not "getting

it" when so many other have. The Yogas Vashista itself declares that

even the word of Lord Brahmaji should not be taken at face value if it

is not in keeping with what is logical. Thus this pursuit needs a

razor sharp intellect and logic no dount but those are only assets -

by themselves they cannot and will not deliver the goods.

 

Let me give you a couple of examples

 

If I am looking through bifocals with a lot of dust in them and I

cannot see and ask a Guru to rectify my sight he can tell me clean

them and you will see..if i want proof that i will see when my

bifocals are clean what proof can be offered? the proof lies in me

being able to see once the lens is clean.

 

Imagine you are in a dream and struggling with self-identity. A guru

comes to you and says "hey listen, you your dream and everything that

you see around you is all you - you fashioned this dream out of

yourself - your problems, your poverty, your illness, your sorrow -

they are all you...wake up and see for yourself that this all a

mirage." now while remaining in the dream if you try to analyze your

way out of it- you can waste away a million dream years in that dream

and still be in the dream. You have to wake up.

 

This is a spiritual quest not a scientific one.

In a spiritual quest a spiritual attitude of reverence, and bhakti are

absolute basic prerequisities besides other qualities like shama dama etc

 

Best wishes,

Shri Gurubhyoh namah

 

Shyam

 

 

>

> advaitin, "Durga" <durgaji108@> wrote:

> >

> > advaitin, "hersh_b" <hershbhasin@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Namaste Shaym ji

> > >

> > > >>The reality is that I am clay. I was clay before the pot was

> > > created as were you as were every other claypots.

> > >

> > >

> > > Just a thought. Why stop at clay.

> > >

> > > So the clay is not the final substance. Then one

> > > wonders what hold the quarks together. Some sort of energy??.

> > Are we that energy??. I come to a closed door here.

> > >

> >

> > >

> > > Just some thoughts..

> > >

> > > Regards

> > > Hersh

> >

> > Namaste Hersh,

> >

> > I think that taking the analogy this far is what

> > Vedanta might call going beyond the limits of

> > the drishtanta.

> >

> > That is, clay being the substrate reality of

> > all name and form is just an illustration of

> > how it is that nondual Being is the substrate

> > reality of all that one sees and perceives in

> > duality.

> >

> > Then if someone introduces the 'doubt' about the

> > nature of matter, which you have so admirably done

> > above, the teacher will then switch to an analysis

> > of the creation itself.

> >

> > All matter can be divided into smaller and

> > smaller parts, as can all units of time.

> >

> > The smallest particle of matter has yet to

> > be found (and I would venture that Vedanta

> > would say the smallest particle of cannot be found,

> > as all particles no matter how small are subject

> > to division). The smallest unit of time can never

> > be found either. Each unit of time is subject

> > to division.

> >

> > Then what? What is all of this duality anyway?

> >

> > So then, the leap is made. All of this

> > which I see and perceive has for its

> > substrate reality, Being itself which

> > is formless and timeless, and yet *is,*

> > and I *is* also.

> >

> > What size am I? What shape am I? Do I

> > change? Or do I always exist? Am I always

> > existence, which is timeless and formless?

> > If one closely examines one's experience,

> > one would have to say, "Yes."

> >

> > If I am timeless and formless, and so is

> > everything else, then what separates me

> > from all of this? Nothing.

> >

> > Durga

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Namaste Hershji,

 

In the teachings of Vedanta there are certain

methods which are called drishtantahs, or

illustrations. They are used to try and

get the student to 'see' a certain point.

 

Drishtantahs have their uses and their

limitations. Usually they are used only

to prove one point in particular, and

they cannot be infinitely extended, nor

are they necessarily scientifically accurate,

nor are they meant to be.

 

For instance clay pot, or gold bangle.

 

The point of those illustrations is to

show that although the form may be

different, the substance is the same.

 

Gold jewelry may have different shapes,

but it is all gold. Clay articles may

have different shapes, but they are

all clay.

 

So this is not a scientific analysis, or

a breaking down of things into their chemical

components, but rather it is an illustration

to show that although the form may be

different, the substrate reality is the

same.

 

Now would Vedanta say that the substrate reality

of everything is clay? No. Would the teachings say

that the substrate reality of everything is gold? No.

 

Would Vedanta say that the substrate reality

of everything is any type of objectifiable

matter, regardless of how precise the instrument

which searches for it is? No.

 

Vedanta would hold that the substrate

reality of everything is Being. But

Being cannot perceived as an object,

the way clay or gold can be perceived

as the substrate material of either a pot,

or of jewelry.

 

So using clay or gold to stand in

for the substrate reality of an object

is just a drishtantah, an illustration. It

isn't meant to be taken that the substrate

reality of all matter is another kind of

objectifiable matter.

 

To use the illustration correctly, you don't

go "higher up in the class hierarchy." That

would be to extend the illustration farther

than it is meant to be extended.

 

What the illustration is meant to point out is that

regardless of the appearance of the form,

there is some `thing,' (although not a thing in

our usual meaning of the word), which is

substrate to everything that appears to exist.

 

To make the leap that the substrate of everything

is Being, is not a leap of faith, but rather a

leap of deductive reasoning.

 

If one accepts that everything can be broken

into smaller and smaller parts, (if in fact,

everything in duality can be infinitely divided),

then how can one find an 'object' which is the

substrate reality of all things? One can't.

(Although that doesn't seem to stop scientists

from trying).

 

On another point, which you raised, if your experience

is that you are time-bound and subject to death, then

that means that you have identified your self to be

one with and a product of the body. This is called

dehatmabuddhi.

 

It means that your mind has the strong conviction that

your body and mind are the Atma (the self). And it is

this strong conviction which the teachings of Vedanta

seek to break, by pointing out to the student, with

infinite patience, from more angles than can be conceived

of by one human mind, that this is not the case. And

it is for this reason, (because of this type of patient

pointing), that the Upanishads, which comprise Vedanta,

are called 'the Mother sruti.' The Mother scripture.

 

You write: "if I accept that I am timeless, why should I accept words

> written by people in the past (which is in time). See the

> contradiction - a timeless soul trying to make sense of his being by

> reading words written in time."

 

It is not your timeless nature which is trying to make

sense of your being, it is your mind, which is indeed

time bound. Vedanta works as a pramana, which means

that it points out to your mind, in innumerable ways,

the actual 'self' experience which you are having

at this moment, and what that `self' experience

actually is.

 

Right now, perhaps you take your self, (that self which

you experience at this very moment as you), to be one

with your body and your mind. Vedanta would say this

is not so. You are not your body or your mind.

 

Your very own self is not changing in any way,

and indeed never has. It is your very own

self, which is formless, timeless and unchanging,

that is the substrate reality of everything.

 

So it is the direct recognition of this fact

which Vedanta seeks to show the student.

 

But all of this, Hershji, requires a lot of teaching. It

can take years before any of this begins to become clear.

And for that one needs a very good teacher, and I am

not a teacher.

 

But this I can tell you. If what the Upanishads is

pointing you to is your timeless nature, and if the

methodology has worked in the past, then why would

it not work in the present?

 

A mind is a mind. Self-ignorance is self-ignorance.

Self-ignorance is held to be beginningless.

It is the condition which every being is born with.

Self-ignorance occurs in the mind.

Self-knowledge removes it.

 

All of these things (the mind, self-ignorance,

and self-knowledge) have not changed since the

Upanishads were first used in teaching. If the teacher knows

how to use the Upanishads to point out to you

the timeless nature of your Being, and to point out to

you 'the mistake' that your mind has made in

taking your self to be a time bound product of

the body/mind, (which is what self-ignorance is), then

why should the teachings not work now and always?

 

Pranams,

Durga

[Guest guest]

Namaste Durgaji

If one accepts that everything can be broken into smaller and smaller

parts, (if in fact,everything in duality can be infinitely divided),

then how can one find an 'object' which is the substrate reality of

all things? One can't.(Although that doesn't seem to stop scientists

from trying).

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

If one keeps on subdividing one CAN come to the substrate reality of

all things and here science and Vedanta can agree and that was my

point.

 

The physicist says that ultimately all these fundemental particals

are manifestations of energy. Einstein says that matter is a

whirlpool of the electromagnetic field.

 

Vivakanand said that matter is a whirlpool of Prana.

 

Prana and energy. This is what Vivakananda and Einstein can agree

upon.

 

Regards

Hersh

[Guest guest]

H.N. Sreenivasa Murthy

Dear Sri Hersh,

Your postings give immense" Harsha" to the readers like me. Thank you for the same.

I have a doubt: Where does the ' Observer' come into the picture in the investigations done by the physicist? Can any amount of division or subdivision

give one the vision of the WHOLENESS? A scientist investigates a part of the Life and arrive at certain conclusions. Conclusions drawn from a partial view of Life are always subjected to errors and there is no finality. An examination of the Life in Its Totality can alone give conclusions which are ' avivAdaH' and 'aviruddhaH'.

With warm regards ,

Sreenivasa Murthy.

 

hersh_b <hershbhasin > wrote:

Namaste Durgaji

If one accepts that everything can be broken into smaller and smaller

parts, (if in fact,everything in duality can be infinitely divided),

then how can one find an 'object' which is the substrate reality of

all things? One can't.(Although that doesn't seem to stop scientists

from trying).

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

If one keeps on subdividing one CAN come to the substrate reality of

all things and here science and Vedanta can agree and that was my

point.

 

The physicist says that ultimately all these fundemental particals

are manifestations of energy. Einstein says that matter is a

whirlpool of the electromagnetic field.

 

Vivakanand said that matter is a whirlpool of Prana.

 

Prana and energy. This is what Vivakananda and Einstein can agree

upon.

 

Regards

Hersh

 

 

 

 

 

Here’s a new way to find what you're looking for - Answers

[Guest guest]

"should we, the clay, be concerned and identify or relate to other

clay pots and help them realise that they are clay, that they are

clay not pots, or should we simply keep the focus one our own pot,

which is not really our own pot since we are the clay.

Regards, Lulu"

 

Namaste Lulu-ji

 

Is the culmination of our search self realization or is it helping

others?

I think by the latter you are perhaps referring to the bodhisattva

doctrine that the ultimate aim is to help hundreds of other deluded

jivas also understand their innate buddha-hood.

 

According to the Vedantic teaching getting established in this

selfknowledge is the goal as it were.

Once the sthitaprajna has understood his oneness with brahman then

he is at peace forever.

After that the "actions" of a sthitaprajna are governed by some

combination of his freewill as well his prarabdha, it matters little

what that combination is. He may be a mouni-baba remaining living

silently in a Himalayan cave, he may undertake some type of service

with no particular altruistic motive, or he may open an ashram and

teach the subject matter to others. But in and through all that he

has no sense of do-ership. His identification is ever with the

vastu. His actions can neither add to nor take away from his sense

of "whole"ness.

 

If he does help others it is because of an extreme measure of

compassion. This is because he is trying to help someone out of a

problem that that latter person does not have. He knows the seeker

is nonseparate from brahman - but is steadfastly holding on to the

idea that he is not - and so first he has to legitimize as it were

the seeker's problem by seemingly agreeing with him that yes his

problem is real and then proceed to help me "re-solve" it. A

thousand prostrations to these realized Ones!

 

 

"Your opinion on pure being and pure non-being would be of interest

as well."

 

With regards to being and nonbeing I would say nonbeing is

unmanifest being. Being as sat always is. It never is not. Being

can be manifest and unmanifest. Being can never be nonbeing and from

nonbeing being can never arise. Any idea of nonbeing giving rise to

being should always be understood as the unmanifest being "becoming"

as it were manifest - thats all - even through that Being is being

only. Like the famous and most wonderful Upanisadic example of not

seeing the future Banyan tree in the seed - Svetaketu says i

see "nothing" - the father clarifies that what he sees is not

nothing, it is the unmanifest Banyan tree.

 

Hari Om

Shyam

[Guest guest]

Pranams subrahmanian-ji

Thank you for the very kind words of indulgence.

 

My words are mere reflections of my Gurujis teachings - akin to that

of the beautiful full Moon in a bucket of rather muddy water - the

fact that they seem worthy of appreciation esp from learned scholars

like you (inspite of the mud) is of course completely because of

their nectarine source - my Guru-ji.

 

Thanks to Masters like you and others in this group, we seekers are

able to get so many ready references to context of so many

widespread gems from the sruti and it never ceases to amaze me

how "fresh" they sound no matter how many hundreds of times we hear

or read them!

My pranams to you and your Guru.

 

 

Shri Gurubhyoh namah

Shyam

 

 

advaitin, "subrahmanian_v"

<subrahmanian_v wrote:

>

> advaitin, "shyam_md" <shyam_md@> wrote:

>

> Namaste Shyam,

>

> It has become a real treat to read your posts. They are full of

> great understanding and value to the brim. The thought of the

mantra

> of the Kathopanishad: aNoraNiiyAn mahto mahIyAn... came to me this

> morning after seeing Hersh ji's post to which you are responding

> now. And it is so nice to see the meaning of this mantra being

> refleted in these words of yours:

>

>

> > The answer to what is smaller than the smallest is the same

vastu

> > that is larger than the universe itself.

>

> The seers of the past were not ignorant of the atomic or subatomic

> particles or a conception of these. For example, in the Chandogya

> Upanishad we have this idea well illustrated. I quote from the

book

> on Chandogya upanishad published by Mahesh Research Institute,

> Varanasi. It carries a very lengthy introduction in English by

Swami

> Mahamandaleshwar Maheshanadagiri.

>

>

> Quote:

>

> Shvetaketu further wanted to know how the differentiated gross

forms

> came out of the non-differentiated pure Divine Being. Uddalaka

> wanted him to observe the philosophical truth as all-pervasive in

> every-day life, and thereby develop a scientific attitude of

> observation. So he asked his son to bring a fruit of a fig tree.

He

> asked him, then, to break it open and observe it. He saw the

seeds

> which were again asked to be broken and observed. Now he could

not

> see nothing. Uddalaka told him that from that nothing, which is

> simply unobservable something, came out the big observable ree

with

> all its branches etc. This had to be accepted on faith -

Shraddha.

> The lesson to be learnt here is that faith is not blind belief,

but a

> reasoned belief. It is also to be noted that the final particles

> that we break anything into, whether molecules, atoms, electrons

> etc., are always unobservable and non-differentiated even in

everyday

> life. Similar is the real self, that is you, Shvetaketu.

>

> Shankara points out that though reason and tradition leads one to

> this conclusion, yet if one is addicted to enjoy external objects,

> his mind will not be concentrated enough to understand the subtle

> reasons, unless one has great faith in what is being discussed.

> Thus, according to Shankara, faith, shraddha, is that which makes

the

> mind concentrated on the intended meaning. (unquote)

>

> The reference above is of the Chandogya VI.12.1 and 2. It is here

> that most vital teaching 'shraddhatsva somya' occurs. Here, in

the

> mantra occurs the word 'aNimAnam'. The Acharya gives the meaning:

> Subtle. From subtle the gross emerges. And He adds: from Existing

> Sat, subtle, alone the gross nama-rupa, etc. effect, the world,

has

> emerged. The Acharya does not seem to be satisfied enough on the

> explanation for the word 'Shraddhatsva Somya'. He further says,

in

> the absence of immense faith, shraddha, this truth cannot be

grasped.

> If Shraddha is present, the mind will undistractedly rest on the

> Truth to be grasped and thereby the grasping is accomplished.

>

> Shyam, this post and your earlier ones in this thread are simply

> great. I retain the rest of it here for it could be read readily.

>

> Warm Regards,

> subbu

>

>

> > Because our intellects and hence our science are in the matrix

of

> the

> > same time and space it is never possible for science to objectify

> > a vastu that itself as it were created both time and space.

> >

> > We can create giant Hubbles that can look 20, nay, 100 billion

light

> > years away - again is that time or distance?? - and there will

still

> > be a yonder!

> >

> > Even the Nobel laureate Schroedinger turned to Vedanta when he

had

> > reached the limits of his intellectual pursuits and he has

written

> > about the Upanishads and his admiration for them in many of his

> books.

> >

> > We are thus caught at the crossroads as it were of infinity - we

> loook

> > "within" and there is infinity, we look "out" and there is

infinity.

> > We hence need something other than a purely objective scientific

> approach.

> >

> > The study of vedanta is not a scientific expedition to know the

> > unknown. It is a spiritual quest by a seeker who questions his

> > existence, his purpose, his mortality, his problems and hence

tries

> to

> > arrive at a solution for himself.

> >

> > For this he needs a proper guru and he needs a certain attitude

that

> > is predominantly characterized by two qualities - sharanaagati

and

> > shraddha - surrender and faith are loose translations

> >

> > We have to surrender our ego and we have to have faith in the

> scriptures.

> >

> > This is why as Smt Lakshmiji so eloquently and elaborately

pointed

> out

> > in her last post we have to take our shruti as Goddess or Mother.

> > Suggesting that the shruti or the parampara are dated or

reduntant

> or

> > unnecessary is inappropriate and such an intellectual pursuit

will

> > never work.

> >

> > This does not mean you leave logic outside the altar.

> > In fact logic as a subject was compulsory for students of

vedanta as

> > was advanced grammar.

> >

> > It simply means I try to use my intellect and logic to

understand

> for

> > myself what the shruti is telling me. If something does not

quite

> add

> > up I do not lose faith in the shruti but analyze why I am

> not "getting

> > it" when so many other have. The Yogas Vashista itself declares

that

> > even the word of Lord Brahmaji should not be taken at face value

if

> it

> > is not in keeping with what is logical. Thus this pursuit needs a

> > razor sharp intellect and logic no dount but those are only

assets -

> > by themselves they cannot and will not deliver the goods.

> >

> > Let me give you a couple of examples

> >

> > If I am looking through bifocals with a lot of dust in them and I

> > cannot see and ask a Guru to rectify my sight he can tell me

clean

> > them and you will see..if i want proof that i will see when my

> > bifocals are clean what proof can be offered? the proof lies in

me

> > being able to see once the lens is clean.

> >

> > Imagine you are in a dream and struggling with self-identity. A

guru

> > comes to you and says "hey listen, you your dream and everything

> that

> > you see around you is all you - you fashioned this dream out of

> > yourself - your problems, your poverty, your illness, your

sorrow -

> > they are all you...wake up and see for yourself that this all a

> > mirage." now while remaining in the dream if you try to analyze

your

> > way out of it- you can waste away a million dream years in that

> dream

> > and still be in the dream. You have to wake up.

> >

> > This is a spiritual quest not a scientific one.

> > In a spiritual quest a spiritual attitude of reverence, and

bhakti

> are

> > absolute basic prerequisities besides other qualities like shama

> dama etc

> >

> > Best wishes,

> > Shri Gurubhyoh namah

> >

> > Shyam

>

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sreenivasa MurthyJI

 

Can any amount of division or subdivision give one the vision of the

WHOLENESS? A scientist investigates a part of the Life and arrive at

certain conclusions. Conclusions drawn from a partial view of

Life are always subjected to errors and there is no finality. An

examination

of the Life in Its Totality can alone give conclusions which are '

avivAdaH'

and 'aviruddhaH'.

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I ask a counter question. Is light a particle or a wave?. Newton said

that light was made up of particles called corpuscles. This could

not explain the phenomenon created by the double slit experiment but

when light was considered to be a wave, it was explained. But the

wave theory could not explain the "photo-electric" effect, which

Einstain showed the particle theory could explain.

 

Quantum theory says that these apparent wavelike/particle properties

of light are not really attributes of light but what we ascribe to

it. In other words light appears to have no properties independent of

us. Hence if we do not exist light does not exist!!

 

So light is both a particle and a wave. It just depends on what

experiment you are trying to do. If you want to do a double-slit

experiment, think of light as a wave and if you wish to test the

photo-electric effect, think of it as a particle .

 

Now Quantum theory has said that the wave-particle duality is the

characteristic of all matter (including ourselves). Thus sometimes we

think like a wave, some times like a particle. When we think as a

wave, we think in terms of Advaita and when we think in terms of a

particle, we think in terms of Sankhya. Both are part of our heritage.

 

I have found many correlations between Sankhya and modern physics.

Some are listed:

 

1) Einstein's coordinate system is our jiva

 

2) Einstein's Mass and Energy equivalence concept is what

Vivakananda was looking for from Tesla. Had Tesla found that

Vivakananda would have been credited with relativity.

 

3) Einstein says that time is local to each individual. Sankhya says

that time is local to the Jiva.

 

4) Modern physics predicts extinction of universe (2nd law of

thermodynamics I think -- and also black holes). Sankhya does the

same. Jiva goes back to Mahat. Per Sankhya universe is created again

and again.

 

5) Both modern science and science think of matter being built up

using fundamental "building-blocks"

 

I can go on..

 

Vivakananda in his lectures has clearly pointed out that Sankhya and

Vedanta are not opposed to each other but just different ways of

thinking. One thinks as a particle, the other as a wave. Since we as

matter are both a particle and a wave, we think using both models,

using what is appropriate to the task at hand.

 

Regards

Hersh

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "hersh_b" <hershbhasin wrote:

>

> Namaste Durgaji

> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

> If one keeps on subdividing one CAN come to the substrate reality

of

> all things and here science and Vedanta can agree and that was my

> point.

>

> The physicist says that ultimately all these fundemental particals

> are manifestations of energy. Einstein says that matter is a

> whirlpool of the electromagnetic field.

>

> Vivakanand said that matter is a whirlpool of Prana.

>

> Prana and energy. This is what Vivakananda and Einstein can agree

> upon.

>

> Regards

> Hersh

>

 

 

Namaste Hersh ji,

 

While i am no scientist or one with any reasonable background of

science, i was taught by a scientist who taught quantum mechanics

throughout his career. While teaching Vedanta what he has on a

number of occasions said is:

 

The particle theory of science is akin to the aNu-vada of the nyaya

vaisheshika. The wave theory of science corresponds to the sankhya's

pradhana or prakriti.

 

While these two, in the Vedanta, are seen as stepping stones to

understand the ultimate thought of Vedanta, the culmination is found

by transcending the wave theory, energy theory, or the Sankhya's

prakriti and resting in the Pure Consciousness, Sat, of the Vedanta.

 

What you said above about the arriving at the substrate reality of

all things, you have voiced the sankhya's conclusion that the world

is a manifestation of the basic energy called pradhana or prakriti.

But according to Vedanta, this is not the final. Prakriti is inert

and is only the causal state of the manifest inert objective world

which includes the mind-body complex. What is beyond this causal

state is the Turiya, the Pure Consciousness, the Brahman, the Atman

shown in the Mandukya Upanishad seventh mantra, after negating both

the manifest world and its causal state, the praajna.

 

Now the question is what is the Upaadaana Kaaranam, the material

cause of the universe according to Vedanta? Vedanta has this to say:

Prakriti,or energy, or Maya, is the PariNAmi Upaadaana kaaranam of

the universe. But the Vivarta Upaadana kaaranam of the universe is

the Sat, Pure Consciousness. This is the teaching found in the

Chandogya Upanishat. While the former material causehood attributed

to prakriti, energy, takes care of the vyavaharic prapancha, its

parinaami nityatva, within ignorance, the cycle of srishti and

pralaya which has to go on continuously, the latter material

causehood attributed to Brahman, Pure Conscousness, Sat, is the Pre-

eminent Substrate, the Adhishthanam of the universe consisting of

both the causal and its manifest forms. This is akin to the rope

being the 'cause' of the appearing snake. By this arrangement,

Brahman is the support of the universe, yet unaffected by it like the

rope never becoming the cause of the snake seen in it only by one who

is deluded about the truth of the rope. This is the composite

position of the Vedanta accommodating the nyaya, the sankhya and the

vivartavada.

 

Here is a quote from the Advaitabodha deepika that Prof VK ji just

quoted:

It is Nature (PrakRti) because all matter came from the inferior

PrakRti (Cosmic Energy)

 

Note: Hershji, kindly do not confront me with scientific theories and

terms in response to the above. It is a total grey-area for me!!

 

Pranams,

subbu

[Guest guest]

Namaskaram to all,

with due respect to Prof VKji ......honestly i didnt want to write...but i am afraid if people like me do not write, then some of us will be great loosers...therefore i write this mail....

Some time I too felt - like Bhaskarji wrote - that the discussions are slipping into some thing else.... But then luckily, we do not loose track and come back to the main road...and that is what needed for us students..

Some times, the language used is too tough for laymen like us to understand. May be we can use a dictionary...but afraid that the meaning given in their may not be good enough to interpret or explain the matter to our understanding.. Wish more simple words are used so that more of us could be benefited from this SATSANG

and finally, Subbuji, kindly do not restrain Hershji or for that matter any one from expressing what they wish to say - be it scientific or anything else--

When they express, they are not confronting us...they are bringing to the notice of all of us and that is an education in itself..which otherwise we do not know when we will be lucky to get and how long we will have to wait...

I will never forget the short discussions that tookplace in here when the question of blue sky came up with superimposition...the posting of Harshaji that time was one of the best ( though it is on light..) and heart of heart I felt so happy over my ignorance..

else for sure me and people like me would not have known this - in this birth atleast...

Hershji..do write more ..

thanks to all and Namaskaram to all

.

 

subrahmanian_v <subrahmanian_v > wrote:

advaitin, "hersh_b" <hershbhasin wrote:

>

> Namaste Durgaji

> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

> If one keeps on subdividing one CAN come to the substrate reality

of

> all things and here science and Vedanta can agree and that was my

> point.

>

> The physicist says that ultimately all these fundemental particals

> are manifestations of energy. Einstein says that matter is a

> whirlpool of the electromagnetic field.

>

> Vivakanand said that matter is a whirlpool of Prana.

>

> Prana and energy. This is what Vivakananda and Einstein can agree

> upon.

>

> Regards

> Hersh

>

 

Namaste Hersh ji,

 

While i am no scientist or one with any reasonable background of

science, i was taught by a scientist who taught quantum mechanics

throughout his career. While teaching Vedanta what he has on a

number of occasions said is:

 

The particle theory of science is akin to the aNu-vada of the nyaya

vaisheshika. The wave theory of science corresponds to the sankhya's

pradhana or prakriti.

 

While these two, in the Vedanta, are seen as stepping stones to

understand the ultimate thought of Vedanta, the culmination is found

by transcending the wave theory, energy theory, or the Sankhya's

prakriti and resting in the Pure Consciousness, Sat, of the Vedanta.

 

What you said above about the arriving at the substrate reality of

all things, you have voiced the sankhya's conclusion that the world

is a manifestation of the basic energy called pradhana or prakriti.

But according to Vedanta, this is not the final. Prakriti is inert

and is only the causal state of the manifest inert objective world

which includes the mind-body complex. What is beyond this causal

state is the Turiya, the Pure Consciousness, the Brahman, the Atman

shown in the Mandukya Upanishad seventh mantra, after negating both

the manifest world and its causal state, the praajna.

 

Now the question is what is the Upaadaana Kaaranam, the material

cause of the universe according to Vedanta? Vedanta has this to say:

Prakriti,or energy, or Maya, is the PariNAmi Upaadaana kaaranam of

the universe. But the Vivarta Upaadana kaaranam of the universe is

the Sat, Pure Consciousness. This is the teaching found in the

Chandogya Upanishat. While the former material causehood attributed

to prakriti, energy, takes care of the vyavaharic prapancha, its

parinaami nityatva, within ignorance, the cycle of srishti and

pralaya which has to go on continuously, the latter material

causehood attributed to Brahman, Pure Conscousness, Sat, is the Pre-

eminent Substrate, the Adhishthanam of the universe consisting of

both the causal and its manifest forms. This is akin to the rope

being the 'cause' of the appearing snake. By this arrangement,

Brahman is the support of the universe, yet unaffected by it like the

rope never becoming the cause of the snake seen in it only by one who

is deluded about the truth of the rope. This is the composite

position of the Vedanta accommodating the nyaya, the sankhya and the

vivartavada.

 

Here is a quote from the Advaitabodha deepika that Prof VK ji just

quoted:

It is Nature (PrakRti) because all matter came from the inferior

PrakRti (Cosmic Energy)

 

Note: Hershji, kindly do not confront me with scientific theories and

terms in response to the above. It is a total grey-area for me!!

 

Pranams,

subbu

 

 

 

 

 

Here’s a new way to find what you're looking for - Answers

[Guest guest]

advaitin, ram mohan anantha pai <pairamblr

wrote:

> and finally, Subbuji, kindly do not restrain Hershji or for that

matter any one from expressing what they wish to say - be it scientific

or anything else--

> When they express, they are not confronting us...they are bringing

to the notice of all of us and that is an education in itself..which

otherwise we do not know when we will be lucky to get and how long we

will have to wait..

 

Namaste,

i understand your point. I was just saying that from my side i would

not be able to make matching responses to questions that are not in my

range of knowing.

 

Hershji, pl. feel free to air your views, i never meant to restrict

you. The note that i had appended was with a friendly tone.

 

Regards,

subbu

[Guest guest]

H.N.Sreenivasa Murthy

Dear Sri Hersh,

Neither I am a physicist nor I have read Quantum physics nor relativity theory etc. My basic knowledge of physics is limited to what I studied during my engineering studies and what physics I studied at that time was too elementary. Why I am giving these details is to facilitate you to give answers so that I could understand. Will you please present your reply in such a way that I could understand. I have a feeling that you have not at all touched the points which I mentioned. Please correct me if I am wrong in my observation.

My questions are simple and straightforward. The answer to them is either yes or no with facts. The answers may please be given in a non-technical and non-academic way. Please excuse me for this direct way of writing.

With warm and respectful regards,

Sreenivasa Murthy

 

hersh_b <hershbhasin > wrote:

Namaste Sreenivasa MurthyJI

 

Can any amount of division or subdivision give one the vision of the

WHOLENESS? A scientist investigates a part of the Life and arrive at

certain conclusions. Conclusions drawn from a partial view of

Life are always subjected to errors and there is no finality. An

examination

of the Life in Its Totality can alone give conclusions which are '

avivAdaH'

and 'aviruddhaH'.

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I ask a counter question. Is light a particle or a wave?. Newton said

that light was made up of particles called corpuscles. This could

not explain the phenomenon created by the double slit experiment but

when light was considered to be a wave, it was explained. But the

wave theory could not explain the "photo-electric" effect, which

Einstain showed the particle theory could explain.

 

Quantum theory says that these apparent wavelike/particle properties

of light are not really attributes of light but what we ascribe to

it. In other words light appears to have no properties independent of

us. Hence if we do not exist light does not exist!!

 

So light is both a particle and a wave. It just depends on what

experiment you are trying to do. If you want to do a double-slit

experiment, think of light as a wave and if you wish to test the

photo-electric effect, think of it as a particle .

 

Now Quantum theory has said that the wave-particle duality is the

characteristic of all matter (including ourselves). Thus sometimes we

think like a wave, some times like a particle. When we think as a

wave, we think in terms of Advaita and when we think in terms of a

particle, we think in terms of Sankhya. Both are part of our heritage.

 

I have found many correlations between Sankhya and modern physics.

Some are listed:

 

1) Einstein's coordinate system is our jiva

 

2) Einstein's Mass and Energy equivalence concept is what

Vivakananda was looking for from Tesla. Had Tesla found that

Vivakananda would have been credited with relativity.

 

3) Einstein says that time is local to each individual. Sankhya says

that time is local to the Jiva.

 

4) Modern physics predicts extinction of universe (2nd law of

thermodynamics I think -- and also black holes). Sankhya does the

same. Jiva goes back to Mahat. Per Sankhya universe is created again

and again.

 

5) Both modern science and science think of matter being built up

using fundamental "building-blocks"

 

I can go on..

 

Vivakananda in his lectures has clearly pointed out that Sankhya and

Vedanta are not opposed to each other but just different ways of

thinking. One thinks as a particle, the other as a wave. Since we as

matter are both a particle and a wave, we think using both models,

using what is appropriate to the task at hand.

 

Regards

Hersh

 

 

 

 

 

Here’s a new way to find what you're looking for - Answers

[Guest guest]

shyam_md <shyam_md > wrote:

 

Is the culmination of our search self realization or is it helping

others?

 

 

 

 

shyam_md <shyam_md > wrote:

From

Sankarraman

Dear Shyam,

Your exposition of Vedanta is very illuminating. May I state that the philosophy of Buddhism also does not accept the existence of any being other than the Nirvana or emptiness, attempted to be equated with the Brahman of Advaita by scholars. You say that the aim of the Bodhisattva doctrine is to help hundreds of other deluded jivas also, understand their innate Buddha-hood, and that according to the Vedantic teaching getting established in this self-knowledge is the goal, as it were, and that once the sthitaprajna has understood his oneness with Brahman, then he is at peace forever. I may say that the goal of the Bodhisattva also is to get established in the immaculate Nirvana, and the question of helping others is from the Vyaharika view point, admitting of the reality of a self behind the five skandhas, which is delusion according to the Buddhistic philosophy. You also say the "actions" of a sthitaprajna are governed by

some combination of his freewill as well his prarabdha, and that it matters little what that combination is. But in and through all that he has no sense of doership. His identification is ever with the vastu. His actions can neither add to nor take away from his sense of "wholeness. You are hundred percent correct in this regard except that I have the doubt regarding the statement that the action of the enlightened one is a combination of freewill and prarabdha. Does the enlightened one have a freewill, which is only for the ego, which was found to be real earlier? Whatever freewill that the enlightened one might have exercised during the period of his non-enlightenment, has given rise to his present prarabdha, goading him on to perform multifarious roles from the viewpoint of the bystanders. You say that, ‘If he does help others it is because of an extreme measure of compassion. This is because he is trying to help someone out of a problem that that

latter person does not have. He knows the seeker is non-separate from Brahman - but is steadfastly holding on to the idea that he is not - and so first he has to legitimize as it were the seeker's problem by seemingly agreeing with him that yes his

problem is real and then proceed to help me "re-solve" it. A thousand prostrations to these realized Ones!’ There are similar thoughts in the Buddhistic teaching also, which I may be permitted to quote from the diamond sutras.

“At that time the Elder Subhuti arose from his seat in the great assembly, uncovered his right shoulder, placed his right knee on the ground, joined his palms together respectfully and addressed the Buddha, ‘How rare, World Honored One, is the Thus Come One who protects and cares well for all Bodhisattvas and well favors all Bodhisattvas. World Honored One, if a good man or good woman resolves his mind on Anuttarasamyaksambodhi , on what should he rely? How should he subdue his mind?’ The Buddha said, ‘Very good, very good Subhuti. It is as you say. The Thus Come One protects and cares well for all Bodhisattvas and well favors all Bodhisattvas. Now listen attentively; I shall tell you. A good man or good woman who resolves his mind on Anuttarasamyaksambodhi should thus rely and thus subdue his mind.Yes indeed, World Honored One. I am delighted and wish to listen.

The Buddha told Subhuti, ‘All Bodhisattvas, Mahasattvas, should subdue their minds thus: 'I must cause all living beings--those born from eggs, wombs, moisture, by transformation; those with form, those without form, those with thought, those without thought, those not totally endowed with thought, and those not totally without thought--to enter Nirvana without residue and be taken across to Cessation. Yet of the immeasurable, numberless, boundless numbers of living beings thus taken across to Cessation, there is actually no living being taken across to Cessation.' Why? Subhuti, if a Bodhisattva has an appearance of self, others, living beings, or a life, he is not a Bodhisattva."

" Moreover, Subhuti, as to dharmas, a Bodhisattva should not rely on anything when giving. That is to say, when giving, he should neither rely on forms, nor sounds, smells, tastes, tangible objects or dharmas. Subhuti, a Bodhisattva should give thus: he should not rely on appearances. Why? If a Bodhisattva does not rely on appearances when giving, his blessings and virtues are inconceivable and immeasurable. "Subhuti, what do you think, is space in the east conceivable or measurable?No World Honored One." "Subhuti, is space in the south, west, north, or in the intermediate directions, above or below conceivable or measurable?No, World Honored One.Subhuti, the blessings and virtues of a Bodhisattva who does not rely on appearances when giving, are just as inconceivable and immeasurable. Subhuti, a Bodhisattva should rely only on the teachings." (http://www.drba.org/dharma/vajrasutra.asp )

All the great teachers’ efforts are only to disabuse the mind of the unenlightened of the notion of the existence of the separate self, be that the anatta doctrine or the advaita Brahman. The terminological differences should not bother us very much. Has not Bhaghavan Ramana clarified this in, ‘Ulladu Narpathu?”. “’The World is true’; ‘No, it is a false appearance’; ‘The World is Mind’; ‘No, it is not’; ‘The World is pleasant’; ‘No, it is not’; What avails such talk? To leave the world alone and know the Self, to go beyond all thought of One and Two, this Ego-less condition is the common goal of all.” To have a personal digression, initially I was drawn to the devotional outpourings of the Nayanmars and the Tamil saints. Subsequently, I came to know that there was one great teacher by name J.Krishnamurthy. When I listened to his teachings, I was initially rudely shocked by his apparently negative approach.

Subsequently, when I chanced to know of Bhaghavan through the Tamil writer Baranitharan, I came to understand that the consummation of the quest was to come upon something beyond thought, which is beyond the categories of verbalization. When I met Nisargadatta, I was convinced that he was talking the same language as that of Bhaghavan. Recently, I listened to a German mystic by name Echorte Tolle, whose utterances also contained a great wisdom. Each teacher is unique. We cannot compare. But, if, in the hearts of our heart, we are convinced that what the particular teacher says contains the nearest approximation to truth, we had better stick on to his teachings. I also wanted to attend a ten days’ Vipassana course conducted by Sri Goenka. But being an indiscipline man, I could not feel equal to the twelve hours meditation session.

Yours ever in Bhaghavan

Sankarraman

__._.___

 

 

 

Get on board. You're invited to try the new Mail Beta.

[Guest guest]

Sreenivasa Murthy Ji

 

> The answer to them is either yes or no with facts. The answers may

please be given in a non-technical and non-academic way.

 

In my own way and in my mind I did attempt to present an answer and

do apologize if what I said was not comprehensible.

 

The wave/ particle duality was intended to show that experiments with

light have shown that light is very much what we want it to be. If we

test light to examine its particle nature, we find it is a particle.

If we test it for its wave nature, we find it is a wave. Now all

matter has been shown to have this duality. We are made of matter and

we also (at least the electons in us) also have this duality.

 

Now a wave signifies completeness. The ocean and the wave is

inseparable and this was why I compared a wave with Vedanta. Sankhya

presents a particle nature of the world as it says that we are all

separate individuals till emancipation.

 

Now I am fascinated with light for is not light what we all are

seeking?. Now light has been an unsolved puzzle. It appears to be

what we want (particle or wave). Now is not reality the same? We can

make reality what we want it to be. What I meant to convey was that

Sankhya, Vedanta and Physics are models we use (at least I do ) to

make sense of reality. I can read a lot of books and convince myself

that I am Whole, I am the ONE etc but as soon as I kick my foot on a

pole, I jump around and forget about my "Wholeness". I am then a

particle.

 

So the answer to your question "Can any amount of division or

subdivision give one the vision of the

WHOLENESS" is I do not know. That is is a question you have to put to

yourself and answer yourself. My position is that it is your

subjective interpretation of the world. I have presented my

subjective position which is that I consider all systems whether

Advaita, Sankhya or Physics as models which help me understand the

world.

 

Regards

Hersh

[Guest guest]

hersh_b <hershbhasin > wrote: Sreenivasa Murthy Ji

 

> So the answer to your question "Can any amount of division or

subdivision give one the vision of the

WHOLENESS" is I do not know. That is is a question you have to put to

yourself and answer yourself. My position is that it is your

subjective interpretation of the world. I have presented my

subjective position which is that I consider all systems whether

Advaita, Sankhya or Physics as models which help me understand the

world.

 

Regards

Hersh

 

Namaskaram Hershji and all other members,

While i could understand what Hershji is expressing ( not that i understood to the extent that i can agree--but makes some sense which needs more comprehension and clarification etc..--) up to the point of telling that one need to answere that one's self...

I am in bigger confusion when I read the last line..."subjective"

It means all the discussions taking place here in is subjective ???

I am sure there will be more views forthcoming on : is it subjective or objective.....

 

 

 

Here’s a new way to find what you're looking for - Answers

[Guest guest]

> From

> Sankarraman

> Dear Shyam,

You also say the "actions" of a sthitaprajna are governed by

some combination of his freewill as well his prarabdha,.. I have the

doubt regarding the statement that the action of the enlightened one

is a combination of freewill and prarabdha. Does the enlightened one

have a freewill, which is only for the ego, which was found to be

real earlier? Whatever freewill that the enlightened one might have

exercised during the period of his non-enlightenment, has given rise

to his present prarabdha, goading him on to perform multifarious

roles from the viewpoint of the bystanders...

 

 

Pranams Sankarraman-ji

 

Thank you for sharing that wonderful sutra.

 

>From my limited understanding, I would say that even an enlightened

person has free will but it will always be in keeping with dharma with

no effort on his part, and it will always be with detachment to its

results, again with no effort whatsoever on his part(thus

differentiating this from a karmayogi's attempts at doing the same)

 

And this we can see when we observe our own wonderful Seers such as HH

Swami Chinmayanandaji, Swami Dayanandaji and so on. They are no dount

exercising their free will as it were in conducting classes, teaching,

etc. Adi Shankara was more active than any of us can ever imagine to

be humanly possible - can you imagine just walking from Kanyakumari to

Kashmir, let alone writing a million books on palmyra leaves and

teaching and establishing mutts and engaging in scholarly debates in a

span of a little over a decade!!! All this would logically require

exercising one's free will - the free will itself being nondifferent

from Brahman. But in and through all that these Seers do not retain

obviosuly any notion of doer-ship and hence since there is no karta

there is no bhokta either.

Ch 5 of othe Gita esp had some wonderful slokas on this topic.

The nirvikalpa samadhi where-in one completely loses his

body/mind/intellect into the realm of Brahman as it were and retains

no thought and "experiences" pure awareness is not a realistic

portrayal of what advaita is all about.

Remaining awake and alive in the here and now and "seeing" the nondual

substratum in and through all the duality one apparently perceives is

what is the goal.

 

"if, in the hearts of our heart, we are convinced that what the

particular teacher says contains the nearest approximation to truth,

we had better stick on to his teachings."

 

Couldnt agree with you more.

 

Hari Om

Shyam